[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10149-10166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NO SANCTUARY FOR CRIMINALS ACT

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 414, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and political 
subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marshall). Pursuant to House Resolution 
414, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3003

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. STATE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION 
                   LAW.

       (a) In General.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1373) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal, State, or local law, no Federal, State, or local 
     government entity, and no individual, may prohibit or in any 
     way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity, 
     official, or other personnel from complying with the 
     immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))), or 
     from assisting or cooperating with Federal law enforcement 
     entities, officials, or other personnel regarding the 
     enforcement of these laws.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Law Enforcement Activities.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no Federal, 
     State, or local government entity, and no individual, may 
     prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local 
     government entity, official, or other personnel from 
     undertaking any of the following law enforcement activities 
     as they relate to information regarding the citizenship or 
     immigration status, lawful or unlawful, the inadmissibility 
     or deportability, or the custody status, of any individual:
       ``(1) Making inquiries to any individual in order to obtain 
     such information regarding such individual or any other 
     individuals.
       ``(2) Notifying the Federal Government regarding the 
     presence of individuals who are encountered by law 
     enforcement officials or other personnel of a State or 
     political subdivision of a State.
       ``(3) Complying with requests for such information from 
     Federal law enforcement entities, officials, or other 
     personnel.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service'' and inserting ``Department of 
     Homeland Security''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Compliance.--
       ``(1) Eligibility for certain grant programs.--A State, or 
     a political subdivision of a State, that is found not to be 
     in compliance with subsection (a) or (b) shall not be 
     eligible to receive--
       ``(A) any of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to 
     the State or political subdivision under section 241(i) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), the 
     `Cops on the Beat' program under part Q of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd et seq.), or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3750 et seq.); or
       ``(B) any other grant administered by the Department of 
     Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is 
     substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national 
     security, immigration, or naturalization.
       ``(2) Transfer of custody of aliens pending removal 
     proceedings.--The Secretary, at the Secretary's discretion, 
     may decline to transfer an alien in the custody of the 
     Department of Homeland Security to a State or political 
     subdivision of a State found not to be in compliance with 
     subsection (a) or (b), regardless of whether the State or 
     political subdivision of the State has issued a writ or 
     warrant.
       ``(3) Transfer of custody of certain aliens prohibited.--
     The Secretary shall not transfer an alien with a final order 
     of removal pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or (5) of section 
     241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1231(a)) to a State or a political subdivision of a State 
     that is found not to be in compliance with subsection (a) or 
     (b).
       ``(4) Annual determination.--The Secretary shall determine 
     for each calendar year which States or political subdivision 
     of States are not in compliance with subsection (a) or (b) 
     and shall report such determinations to Congress by March 1 
     of each succeeding calendar year.
       ``(5) Reports.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     issue a report concerning the compliance with subsections (a) 
     and (b) of any particular State or political subdivision of a 
     State at the request of the House or the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee. Any jurisdiction that is found not to be in 
     compliance shall be ineligible to receive Federal financial 
     assistance as provided in paragraph (1) for a minimum period 
     of 1 year, and shall only become eligible again after the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the 
     jurisdiction has come into compliance.
       ``(6) Reallocation.--Any funds that are not allocated to a 
     State or to a political subdivision of a State due to the 
     failure of the State or of the political subdivision of the 
     State to comply with subsection (a) or (b) shall be 
     reallocated to States or to political subdivisions of States 
     that comply with both such subsections.
       ``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall require 
     law enforcement officials from States, or from political 
     subdivisions of States, to report or arrest victims or 
     witnesses of a criminal offense.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that subsection (d) of section 642 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373), as added by this section, shall apply only 
     to prohibited acts committed on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFYING THE AUTHORITY OF ICE DETAINERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 287(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Detainer of Inadmissible or Deportable Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is 
     arrested by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
     official or other personnel for the alleged violation of any 
     criminal or motor vehicle law, the Secretary may issue a 
     detainer regarding the individual to any Federal, State, or 
     local law enforcement entity, official, or other personnel if 
     the Secretary has probable cause to believe that the 
     individual is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
       ``(2) Probable cause.--Probable cause is deemed to be 
     established if--
       ``(A) the individual who is the subject of the detainer 
     matches, pursuant to biometric confirmation or other Federal 
     database records, the identity of an alien who the Secretary 
     has reasonable grounds to believe to be inadmissible or 
     deportable;
       ``(B) the individual who is the subject of the detainer is 
     the subject of ongoing removal proceedings, including matters 
     where

[[Page 10150]]

     a charging document has already been served;
       ``(C) the individual who is the subject of the detainer has 
     previously been ordered removed from the United States and 
     such an order is administratively final;
       ``(D) the individual who is the subject of the detainer has 
     made voluntary statements or provided reliable evidence that 
     indicate that they are an inadmissible or deportable alien; 
     or
       ``(E) the Secretary otherwise has reasonable grounds to 
     believe that the individual who is the subject of the 
     detainer is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
       ``(3) Transfer of custody.--If the Federal, State, or local 
     law enforcement entity, official, or other personnel to whom 
     a detainer is issued complies with the detainer and detains 
     for purposes of transfer of custody to the Department of 
     Homeland Security the individual who is the subject of the 
     detainer, the Department may take custody of the individual 
     within 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays), but in no 
     instance more than 96 hours, following the date that the 
     individual is otherwise to be released from the custody of 
     the relevant Federal, State, or local law enforcement 
     entity.''.
       (b) Immunity.--
       (1) In general.--A State or a political subdivision of a 
     State (and the officials and personnel of the State or 
     subdivision acting in their official capacities), and a 
     nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the 
     State or political subdivision for the purpose of providing 
     detention, acting in compliance with a Department of Homeland 
     Security detainer issued pursuant to this section who 
     temporarily holds an alien in its custody pursuant to the 
     terms of a detainer so that the alien may be taken into the 
     custody of the Department of Homeland Security, shall be 
     considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for 
     purposes of determining their liability and shall be held 
     harmless for their compliance with the detainer in any suit 
     seeking any punitive, compensatory, or other monetary 
     damages.
       (2) Federal government as defendant.--In any civil action 
     arising out of the compliance with a Department of Homeland 
     Security detainer by a State or a political subdivision of a 
     State (and the officials and personnel of the State or 
     subdivision acting in their official capacities), or a 
     nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the 
     State or political subdivision for the purpose of providing 
     detention, the United States Government shall be the proper 
     party named as the defendant in the suit in regard to the 
     detention resulting from compliance with the detainer.
       (3) Bad faith exception.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not 
     apply to any mistreatment of an individual by a State or a 
     political subdivision of a State (and the officials and 
     personnel of the State or subdivision acting in their 
     official capacities), or a nongovernmental entity (and its 
     personnel) contracted by the State or political subdivision 
     for the purpose of providing detention.
       (c) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) Cause of action.--Any individual, or a spouse, parent, 
     or child of that individual (if the individual is deceased), 
     who is the victim of a murder, rape, or any felony, as 
     defined by the State, for which an alien (as defined in 
     section 101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(3))) has been convicted and sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of at least one year, may bring an 
     action against a State or political subdivision of a State in 
     the appropriate Federal or State court if the State or 
     political subdivision released the alien from custody prior 
     to the commission of such crime as a consequence of the State 
     or political subdivision's declining to honor a detainer 
     issued pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)).
       (2) Limitation on bringing action.--An action brought under 
     this subsection may not be brought later than ten years 
     following the occurrence of the crime, or death of a person 
     as a result of such crime, whichever occurs later.
       (3) Attorney's fee and other costs.--In any action or 
     proceeding under this subsection the court shall allow a 
     prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of 
     the costs, and include expert fees as part of the attorneys' 
     fee.

     SEC. 4. SARAH AND GRANT'S LAW.

       (a) Detention of Aliens During Removal Proceedings.--
       (1) Clerical amendments.--(A) Section 236 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226) is amended by 
     striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears (except 
     in the second place that term appears in section 236(a)) and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
       (B) Section 236(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     or'' before ``the Attorney General--''.
       (C) Section 236(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``Attorney General's'' and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Homeland Security's''.
       (2) Length of detention.--Section 236 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1226) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Length of Detention.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, an alien may be detained, and for an alien 
     described in subsection (c) shall be detained, under this 
     section without time limitation, except as provided in 
     subsection (h), during the pendency of removal proceedings.
       ``(2) Construction.--The length of detention under this 
     section shall not affect detention under section 241.''.
       (3) Detention of criminal aliens.--Section 236(c)(1) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) is unlawfully present in the United States and has 
     been convicted for driving while intoxicated (including a 
     conviction for driving while under the influence or impaired 
     by alcohol or drugs) without regard to whether the conviction 
     is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under State law, or
       ``(F)(i)(I) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(i),
       ``(II) is deportable by reason of a visa revocation under 
     section 221(i), or
       ``(III) is deportable under section 237(a)(1)(C)(i), and
       ``(ii) has been arrested or charged with a particularly 
     serious crime or a crime resulting in the death or serious 
     bodily injury (as defined in section 1365(h)(3) of title 18, 
     United States Code) of another person;''; and
       (C) by amending the matter following subparagraph (F) (as 
     added by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph) to read as 
     follows:

     ``any time after the alien is released, without regard to 
     whether an alien is released related to any activity, 
     offense, or conviction described in this paragraph; to 
     whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, 
     or probation; or to whether the alien may be arrested or 
     imprisoned again for the same offense. If the activity 
     described in this paragraph does not result in the alien 
     being taken into custody by any person other than the 
     Secretary, then when the alien is brought to the attention of 
     the Secretary or when the Secretary determines it is 
     practical to take such alien into custody, the Secretary 
     shall take such alien into custody.''.
       (4) Administrative review.--Section 236 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as amended by paragraph 
     (2), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Administrative Review.--The Attorney General's review 
     of the Secretary's custody determinations under subsection 
     (a) for the following classes of aliens shall be limited to 
     whether the alien may be detained, released on bond (of at 
     least $1,500 with security approved by the Secretary), or 
     released with no bond:
       ``(1) Aliens in exclusion proceedings.
       ``(2) Aliens described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4).
       ``(3) Aliens described in subsection (c).
       ``(h) Release on Bond.--
       ``(1) In general.--An alien detained under subsection (a) 
     may seek release on bond. No bond may be granted except to an 
     alien who establishes by clear and convincing evidence that 
     the alien is not a flight risk or a danger to another person 
     or the community.
       ``(2) Certain aliens ineligible.--No alien detained under 
     subsection (c) may seek release on bond.''.
       (5) Clerical amendments.--(A) Section 236(a)(2)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``conditional parole'' and inserting 
     ``recognizance''.
       (B) Section 236(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``parole'' and inserting 
     ``recognizance''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to any alien in detention under the 
     provisions of section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1226), as so amended, or otherwise subject to 
     the provisions of such section, on or after such date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3003.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the No Sanctuary for 
Criminals Act. This simple, straightforward bill combats dangerous 
sanctuary policies that permit criminals to go free. We are all too 
familiar with how sanctuary policies have devastated families across

[[Page 10151]]

the United States, and today we are taking action to prevent these 
senseless tragedies and save American lives.
  For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of 
sanctuary policies have cost too many lives. The Obama administration 
encouraged or, at the very least, turned a blind eye to jurisdictions 
nationwide that implemented sanctuary policies designed to prevent U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to effectively 
enforce Federal law. Foolhardy jurisdictions continue to pass 
legislation and implement policies aimed at stymieing and maligning 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  Earlier this year, a Baltimore City Council member introduced a 
resolution calling on ICE to arrest only those posing a ``serious 
risk.'' In discussing this initiative, the council member likened ICE 
officers to Nazis several times. Such rhetoric is reprehensible, 
creating a moral equivalent between genocide and a nation exercising a 
fundamental right and obligation of sovereignty.
  In a deeply troubling move on the other coast, San Francisco 
announced that it would no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism 
Task Force because of concerns that the task force's duties may 
coincide with immigration enforcement.
  Sanctuary policies often focus on flouting ICE detainers, notices 
issued by ICE to allow it to take custody of aliens in law enforcement 
custody in order to initiate removal proceedings.
  These irresponsible policies have led to a sharp drop in ICE's intake 
of aliens from criminal detention facilities, which forces ICE agents 
to engage in the far more time-consuming and dangerous task of picking 
them up on the streets. This, among other factors, led to a drop in the 
number of criminal aliens removed from the interior of the United 
States from almost 87,000 in fiscal year 2014 to approximately 63,500 
the following 2 fiscal years.
  We must discourage, not encourage, sanctuary policies and practices. 
H.R. 3003 addresses sanctuary policies and also takes great strides in 
clarifying Federal immigration detainer policy.
  Since the 1990s, Federal law has barred jurisdictions from 
restricting communication with Federal immigration officials regarding 
immigration status; however, this provision has never been enforced. 
H.R. 3003 amends current law and expands this prohibition against 
impeding Federal law enforcement. Instead of merely focussing on 
communication, the bill ensures that no jurisdiction may restrict 
assistance or compliance with immigration enforcement.
  To be clear, this bill imposes no affirmative duty to act on the part 
of any jurisdiction. Should a jurisdiction not comply with this 
provision, the jurisdiction will not be eligible for certain grant 
programs administered by the Department of Justice and Homeland 
Security. Eligibility for many of these grant programs is already 
predicated on compliance with this provision in the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
  This section is also in line with a recent memo by Attorney General 
Sessions outlining compliance with this provision as the single factor 
that the Justice Department will use in identifying sanctuary 
jurisdictions.
  Regarding detainer policy, Congress has long heard that jurisdictions 
will not comply with ICE requests to hold individuals due to a lack of 
probable cause inherent in the detainer. I am pleased that H.R. 3003 
provides the probable cause standards necessary to ensure that ICE only 
places detainers on aliens for whom they have probable cause and are 
deportable.
  In addition, the bill mandates that ICE must take custody of the 
subject of a detainer within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. 
Jurisdictions who comply in good faith with detainer requests will be 
immune from liability associated with that detainer, and if such an 
action does arise, the U.S. Government will substitute itself in as the 
defendant. This ensures that jurisdictions do not go bankrupt defending 
against never-ending litigation. And in those jurisdictions that refuse 
to honor a detainer resulting in an alien committing a crime, the 
victim or victim's family will be provided with the opportunity to 
bring a lawsuit against that jurisdiction.
  The third section of H.R. 3003 is named for Sarah Root and Grant 
Ronnebeck, two young people whose lives were suddenly taken by criminal 
aliens who remain at large today. This section was originally 
introduced as separate bills by Judiciary Committee members Steve King 
and Andy Biggs, who worked tirelessly to bring these tragic cases to 
the attention of the committee and the Congress.
  This section provides that aliens who are arrested or charged with 
serious crimes that result in death or serious bodily injury of another 
must be held without bond during the pendency of their removal 
proceedings.

                              {time}  1415

  In addition, aliens convicted of even one drunk driving offense will 
also be ineligible for bond during their removal proceedings. The 
latter would have prevented the August 2010 death of Sister Denise 
Mosier, a Catholic nun in Virginia, at the hands of a drunk driving 
illegal alien who was released from ICE custody on bond. These classes 
of individuals present a clear and present danger to society and should 
not be permitted to roam our communities during the pendency of their 
removal hearings.
  The commonsense provisions of H.R. 3003 will provide better 
immigration enforcement and the peace of mind that no criminal will be 
provided sanctuary from our immigration laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear at the outset of this debate that 
this legislation does nothing to make our communities safer, and it 
does nothing to improve our immigration system. Instead, H.R. 3003 will 
trample the rights of States and localities to determine what is in the 
best interest of their public safety, and it will conscript law 
enforcement to enforce Federal immigration law.
  The ultimate experts on community safety are communities themselves, 
and hundreds of them have determined that, as community trust 
increases, crime decreases. This is because immigrants will come out of 
the shadows and report crimes to local law enforcement when they are 
not threatened with deportation. In fact, a recent study found that 
community trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their 
counterparts.
  Against this considered judgment, H.R. 3003 forces localities to 
abandon community trust principles and mandates the conscription of 
local offices into Federal immigration enforcement. Some localities, of 
course, would rightfully resist this conscription. As punishment, H.R. 
3003 would rob them of vital law enforcement funding that they depend 
on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals, and boost community policing 
ranks.
  Localities, therefore, would face a losing choice: they can abandon 
community trust policies and leave their communities in danger, or they 
can leave community trust policies in place but forgo law enforcement 
funding, leaving their community in danger.
  It is important that we consider that this is more than just bad 
policy. It is also likely unconstitutional for multiple reasons. First, 
H.R. 3003 likely violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering States to 
comply with detainer requests that drain their resources.
  In addition, the bill's changes to the Department of Homeland 
Security's detainer authority exacerbate the current Fourth Amendment 
concerns associated with immigration detainers. The bill does not 
require any particularized finding about the individual that may form 
the basis of a probable cause determination and fails to provide for a 
prompt judicial determination of probable cause.
  The bill further compounds constitutional concerns by eliminating the 
ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent, 
individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral 
decisionmaker.

[[Page 10152]]

  For these reasons--and there are others--I urge my colleagues to 
please oppose this dangerous, mean-spirited, and constitutionally 
suspect legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee not only for working with and cooperating on all this 
legislation, but for the relentless work that has come forward in the 
committee. He has spent a lot of time on this floor and in committee, 
and we are getting some progress here today.
  This is a big week, and we are starting to restore the rule of law. 
The sanctuary cities legislation, which is before us right now, is 
something I just looked back through my records and wondered: How long 
have I slugged away on this?
  The first amendment I brought was in 2005 to cut off some funding to 
sanctuary cities. At each appropriations opportunity, along with CJS 
and Homeland Security, when there was a chance, I would bring another 
amendment and another amendment, 2005 on through 2014 and 2015. In 
2015, then I introduced the broader sanctuary cities legislation which 
is the basis for this legislation.
  I also had the misfortune and fortune of having the Root family as my 
constituents. Sarah Root was tragically killed by an illegal alien on 
the streets. Her father and mother both have been here to testify. Her 
mother is in town this day. Her father, Scott Root, testified before 
the committee. He said this:

       They bailed the killer of my daughter out of jail for less 
     money than it took to bury her, and he was out of this 
     country before we could have the funeral.

  Those words were some of the most chilling and mournful words that I 
have heard in this Congress. This bill today honors his daughter's 
life, Michelle's daughter's life, Sarah, and it also brings into play 
the enforcement that we need to have.
  We have got to put an end to sanctuary cities and ban those 
policies--which the bill does--block the DOJ grants if they don't 
comply with the Federal law, and refuse the warrants to the sanctuary 
cities because they will just release them on the streets and let ICE 
take custody of them within 48 hours. And then the good faith hold 
harmless for ICE detainers, when they got the wrong recommendation out 
of the Obama administration, this makes the right recommendation to 
local jurisdictions.
  The private cause of action is also very useful to us. It is a good, 
solid bill. I thank the chairman and all those who put the work in this 
today, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), who is a senior member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't about fixing our 
immigration system. In fact, it makes the system more dysfunctional and 
puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how 
to police themselves and protect their people. It says: We here in D.C. 
know better than you do, local police, across the United States.
  Now, 600 or more local governments engaged in what they call 
community trust policies. These policies promote, among other things, 
allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these 
offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences. 
Years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach 
best ensures these communities' safety.
  I think that is why we have received communications from the National 
Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to this bill, from the Law 
Enforcement Task Force--that is 36 sheriffs and chiefs across the 
country--in opposition to this bill, from the Major County Sheriffs of 
America in opposition to this bill, from the National Task Force to End 
Sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National 
Association of Counties.
  ICE is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose 
Police Department has told me, San Jose police are not enforcing the 
securities laws, they are not enforcing the Federal tax laws, and they 
are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. They are 
doing their job to protect their community against crime.
  Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding 
from jurisdictions.
  Now, what would that funding be?
  It is grants against violent gangs. It is grants for the Anti-Heroin 
Task Force and the Anti-Methamphetamine Program, grants on port 
security to prevent terrorists from getting into the United States, and 
grants for the BioWatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting 
biohazards and killing us all.
  That is not smart to take those programs away from local governments 
that are working with us to help keep America safe.
  Now, I always think, as I said earlier, we are not doing bumper 
stickers here. We are doing laws. It is important to take a look at the 
details of what is in this proposed bill. In addition to banning 
collaborative grants with localities, the remedies it has made 
available is if a community has a community trust policy, the 
Department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants--legal 
warrants--that are issued by that jurisdiction.
  That is astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the 
local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth 
Amendment prevents them from holding people whose sentences have been 
served. In fact, there are a number of Federal courts that have made 
that determination, you can't hold somebody on a civil detainer request 
without violating the Fourth Amendment.
  There is a remedy to that: get a warrant like anybody else. The 
Fourth Amendment means something, and there is a remedy. Go get a 
warrant. I don't know why our Federal Government feels that they can 
upend constitutional law for their own convenience.
  Now, there is a provision in this bill that I find shocking. What it 
says is that if local governments violate the law--violate a court 
order--that they cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, that they are 
immunized, the Federal Government is going to pay, go ahead and violate 
the law. I cannot remember a time when we had a bill before us that 
said to States and localities: go ahead, violate the law because we are 
going to indemnify you for the violation.
  That is not the way our Federal system should work, and it is not the 
way those of us who believe in our oath of office to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States think that things ought to work.
  Now, finally, it creates something that I think is truly astonishing: 
a private cause of action against a State or locality if because the 
detainer cannot be honored because of the Federal Court cases and a 
person is released and, for any reason, commits a crime that it is the 
locality that bears the cost, not the criminal. This is a crazy 
provision.
  We should oppose this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
gentlewoman from northern California that what is crazy is what the 
city of San Francisco is doing with their taxpayer dollars, since it 
was reported just yesterday that San Francisco taxpayers could soon pay 
$190,000 in a lawsuit settlement with an illegal immigrant who claimed 
he was reported to Federal immigration authorities in violation of the 
city of San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance.

                              {time}  1430

  The city attorney's office confirmed this, and the settlement is 
expected to be confirmed by San Francisco's supervisors in future 
hearings.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  Now, people who are murdered, people who are injured by people who 
are

[[Page 10153]]

unlawfully present in the United States should have their day in court 
with the city of San Francisco or anyone else just as well as they are 
apparently willing to pay money to people who are illegally in the 
country because they were properly turned over to Federal authorities 
to be deported from this country.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, our 
chairman, for his leadership on this, and I rise in strong support of 
the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which has been worked on by a whole 
number of Members of the House.
  The adoption of dangerous sanctuary policies across the country makes 
it more difficult to adequately enforce our immigration laws, which, in 
turn, needlessly puts Americans' lives at risk.
  Unfortunately, sanctuary cities that fail to comply with Federal law 
and deliberately refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities become 
safe havens for undocumented criminal immigrants, because criminals 
know they are less likely to be detained in those cities, which are, by 
definition, sanctuary cities.
  Far too many innocent lives are put at risk when a criminal alien 
convicted, for example, of drunk driving or charged with another 
serious offense is not detained so they could be appropriately dealt 
with and, if warranted, deported from our country according to the law.
  That is why it is essential that we pass this resolution, which will 
strengthen our Nation's immigration laws, hold sanctuary cities 
accountable, and enhance public safety by requiring detention of 
criminal aliens.
  The bottom line is, if we expect our Federal immigration authorities 
to enforce our Nation's immigration laws and protect the American 
people, State and local officials need to cooperate, not defy Federal 
immigration laws. And those local officials who refuse to do so and 
instead give so-called sanctuary to those that have come to our country 
illegally and then committed crimes here, they are putting the very 
people who they were sworn to serve and to protect at risk. And 
unfortunately, this has been happening all over the country, where 
literally people come here illegally, commit crimes, and local entities 
decide not to enforce the law.
  We need to pass this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), a gentleman on the committee who has worked 
tirelessly with myself and Ms. Lofgren to make this measure more 
understandable.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, ever since Donald Trump descended the 
golden escalators at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying 
Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, the 
Republican Party has had Mexican fever, and they have been working 
feverishly to paint immigrants all as criminals. And when something 
goes bad, they go back to their old favorite.
  When Trump's Muslim ban was blocked in the courts, out came the 
Attorney General to say they were doing everything they could to do 
more roundups and that no immigrant was safe in America.
  The Russia investigation not going well for the dear leader at the 
White House? Hey, let's whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice-President 
Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted.
  Healthcare not going well? Let's just hate some Mexicans today.
  Listen, almost 8 out of 10 Latinos in the United States are citizens, 
1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves 1 in 10 who are 
undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of us, whether 
we are citizens or not of the United States of America.
  These bills are nothing new, and they are not really about fighting 
crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos ``in their 
place.'' Latinos, African Americans, Muslims, women, they know what it 
is like to be targeted.
  Ninety-nine percent of the votes for this bill today will come from 
people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves, 
for their children, or the people who they represent, but let's be 
clear. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster child for the kinds 
of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in 
the country, and we know the results.
  Sheriff Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people 
because they are brown. Oh, we will sort out their papers later, he 
says, whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or 
whatever.
  I have talked to U.S. citizens who were detained by Sheriff Arpaio 
because they didn't carry with them their birth certificate or a 
passport at all times in the country in which they were born.
  Let's be clear. Sheriff Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his 
racial profiling, and he has been charged criminally in Federal court 
for his racial profiling tactics, and still the Republicans of the 
House want to make the law he is being sued for legal in the United 
States of America.
  Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice, for what is right 
when the chips are down. Well, the chips are down, and every immigrant 
family and every immigrant in America is going to remember who stood up 
for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep families together 
when the chips were down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President or Vice President.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding and 
for his leadership on this legislation. It is an honor to serve with 
him on the House Judiciary Committee. And I am grateful to 
Representative King as well for producing Sarah's Law.
  Today, the House of Representatives can pass a crucial piece of 
legislation to codify the tenets of two of President Trump's executive 
orders on immigration enforcement.
  H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, will finally hold 
accountable States, cities, and local law enforcement agencies that 
provide safe haven to criminally violent illegal immigrants by refusing 
to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  You know what is astonishing and you know what is shocking, is that 
there are jurisdictions in this country that blatantly choose to 
endanger their communities by providing protection to criminals. 
Passage of H.R. 3003 ensures that these communities will no longer be 
given rewards for their dereliction of duty.
  Importantly, this bill also contains a section entitled Sarah and 
Grant's Law, which recognizes two young Americans who were murdered by 
criminally violent illegal aliens who had no right to be on our 
streets.
  In January 2015, a 21-year-old convenience store clerk and 
constituent of mine, Grant Ronnebeck, was working the graveyard shift 
at QuickTrip in Mesa, Arizona. Just before 4 a.m., an illegal alien 
with a long criminal record, awaiting deportation proceedings, walked 
in and demanded a pack of cigarettes. When Grant tried to count the 
money before handing them over, the man shot him and left him to die.
  Sarah and Grant are far from the only Americans who have been 
impacted by illegal immigration. In 2014, Mesa, Arizona, police officer 
Brandon Mendoza was killed in a wrong-way car crash by an illegal 
immigrant driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
  Despite tragic stories like these, the Obama administration continued 
to promote policies that circumvented many of our immigration laws, 
allowing thousands of criminals to return to our communities. It is 
time for these reckless policies to end.
  H.R. 3003 specifically targets illegals who commit serious crimes by 
preventing them from being released onto our streets during their 
deportation proceedings.

[[Page 10154]]

  After 8 years of policies that have placed a priority on protecting 
all illegal aliens, including those who are violent criminals, over the 
rights and safety of Americans, it is refreshing to have a President 
who is willing to follow regular law and order. President Trump has 
taken active steps to reverse the failed policies of the previous 
administration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BIGGS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump has taken active steps to reverse the 
failed policies of the Obama administration and has been vocally 
supportive of Congress' efforts to do the same.
  Passing this bill is a positive step toward our duty of enforcing the 
Nation's immigration laws, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Intellectual Properties 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003. This 
legislation would withhold needed law enforcement funding from cities 
that choose not to assist Federal authorities in enforcing the 
immigration laws.
  Besides being constitutionally suspect, this bill is also highly 
counterproductive. Recognizing that good policing depends on building 
trust with their residents, many cities forbid their law enforcement 
officers from questioning victims of crime or witnesses to a crime 
about their immigration status, and they do not share immigration 
information with Federal authorities.
  They believe that their communities are at greater risk when a victim 
of domestic violence is afraid to ask the police for protection from 
her abuser for fear of deportation, or when witnesses to a murder 
refuse to assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator 
because they are afraid their immigration status will be discovered.
  These cities have concluded that taking on themselves the Federal 
responsibility to enforce immigration laws would destroy trust between 
immigrants and local law enforcement, which would make everyone less 
safe.
  Perversely, this bill would punish these cities by denying them the 
funds that they need to protect public safety. Funding to hire new 
police officers, grants to combat the opioid crisis, and money to 
reduce the rape kit backlog could all be taken away under this bill. 
Not only does this raise serious constitutional concerns, it is simply 
bad policy that will lead to more crime, not less.
  As if this were not bad enough, the bill would also authorize 
mandatory indefinite detention of certain categories of immigrants 
without sufficient due process even if they present no danger to their 
communities.
  Indefinite detention is repugnant to our values of fairness and 
individual liberty, but this bill perpetuates the ugly myth that 
immigrants are more dangerous and likely to commit more crimes than 
native-born Americans, and it erodes the fundamental protections that 
we guarantee to all who are present in this country.
  Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between 
Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill demonizes immigrants, 
punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and 
law enforcement, and authorizes indefinite detention of certain 
immigrants, all while making us less safe.
  For each of these reasons, this bill should be defeated, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mast).
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about two very honorable 
lives, Paul Besaw and Lahiri Garcia, who were both taken from us far 
too soon by the criminal acts of one who was illegally in our country.
  A death of our innocent neighbors is especially devastating when it 
could have been prevented had our immigration laws been upheld and had 
they been working.
  Paul and Lahiri were paramedics in my community, dedicated to saving 
lives, but on January 1, a man illegally in our country, driving drunk, 
collided with their ambulance and killed both of them.
  Paul left behind his loving wife, Dawn, and his 6-year-old daughter, 
Allison, who you see here behind me. When I spoke with Paul's widow, 
she rightfully said that if our country wasn't ``too afraid or inept to 
enforce immigration law,'' her husband would still be with her today, 
and she is absolutely right.
  Lahiri's wife, Julie Garcia, told me how hard it was for her four 
children to not have their father this Father's Day. She expected to 
grow old with her husband, but because this man wasn't sent home the 
first three times he was pulled over, she will no longer have that 
opportunity.
  Both wives, both mothers, expressed to me sincere disbelief. They 
don't understand why this was allowed to happen, and, for the life of 
me, I can't understand why it is allowed either.
  The bottom line is that this should never happen to anyone. Sanctuary 
cities are a violation of the rule of law, they are absolutely 
unacceptable, they cannot be tolerated. We must enforce this rule of 
law.
  It is, in fact, the right of every American to be protected by this 
government. It is not the right of anybody to spend one day, one 
moment, in our country illegally or without invitation.
  Today, Congress is addressing this epidemic. Our bills, they crack 
down on dangerous sanctuary policies that put these kind of innocent 
lives at risk.
  So let us ensure that unlawful immigrants convicted of crimes are, in 
fact, detained and are, in fact, deported.
  Mr. Speaker, let's pass these bills. More importantly, let us be 
convicted that what happened to Paul and what happened to Lahiri is 
never allowed to happen again.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations Subcommittee of the 
House Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that none one of us 
who comes to this floor doubts that any local law enforcement, our 
neighbors, do any second-guessing to arrest drunk drivers, murderers, 
and others, and that they are held to the high calling of justice. I do 
not want to be associated with being mild-mannered and weak on those 
who would do serious harm, kill, and maim, no matter who they are. That 
is not this debate.
  This debate is whether or not this bill interferes with the 
legitimate enforcement of the law and whether or not it takes away the 
mercy that we are known for in the United States. Let me tell you why.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Fraternal 
Order of Police--which, by no means, is shy about enforcing the law--
writing to oppose this legislation, saying that local police 
departments answer to local civilian government, and it is the local 
government which enacts statutes and ordinances.

                                          National Fraternal Order


                                                    of Police,

                                     Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and 
     Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any 
     amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law 
     enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or 
     resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an 
     effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The 
     House will

[[Page 10155]]

     consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and Section 2 of 
     this bill would restrict the hiring program administered by 
     the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), 
     the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-
     JAG) programs, as well as programs administered by the U.S. 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly 
     believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should 
     cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said, 
     withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
     which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety 
     efforts.
       Local police departments answer to local civilian 
     government and it is the local government which enacts 
     statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement 
     officers have no more say in these matters than any other 
     citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be 
     argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to 
     pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out 
     lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the 
     civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to 
     penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because 
     Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with 
     respect to our nation's immigration laws.
       The FOP issued a statement in January of this year 
     regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary 
     cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The 
     President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law 
     enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the 
     political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S. 
     Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the 
     public safety impact without an automatic suspension from 
     Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is 
     no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's 
     existing policy.
       The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress, 
     which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and 
     we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce 
     or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for 
     local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect 
     policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find 
     another way to do so.
       On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R. 
     3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to 
     find a better way to improve public safety in our 
     communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

         Committee on Migration, United States Conference of 
           Catholic Bishops,
                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.


                                       Catholic Charities USA,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on 
     Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
     COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
       The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare 
     of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our 
     parishes include those with and without immigration status, 
     unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of 
     crime in the United States, including domestic violence, 
     armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of 
     fostering cooperation and information-sharing between 
     immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
       We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on 
     local governments that we fear--and that many of them have 
     warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law 
     enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local 
     law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure 
     public safety in all communities.
       Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to 
     jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law 
     enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and 
     naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
     compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network, 
     including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the 
     federal government on a number of Department of Justice and 
     Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including 
     disaster response and recovery, naturalization and 
     citizenship services, and services for the immigrant, 
     including victims of human trafficking, and domestic 
     violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the 
     protection and promotion of the human person and in some 
     instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these 
     important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not 
     humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
       Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion 
     of incarceration and does not include adequate protections 
     for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or 
     seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable 
     efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent 
     criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal 
     by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal 
     re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in 
     these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that 
     important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to 
     prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent 
     crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry 
     or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does 
     not advance the common good nor will it ensure that 
     communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as 
     introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum 
     seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented 
     themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from 
     violence), from being able to access protection, and instead 
     face fines, imprisonment or both.
       We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of 
     a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration 
     reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family 
     unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs 
     and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and 
     security.
       The United States has a long and proud history of 
     leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their 
     circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready 
     to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to 
     this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of 
     our views in this regard.
           Sincerely,
                                            Most Rev. Joe VAsquez,
         Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
                                       Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD,
     President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.
                                  ____


              [From the Houston Chronicle, Apr. 30, 2017]

             Police Chiefs: SB 4 is a `Lose-Lose' for Texas

                 (By Art Acevedo and James McLaughlin)

       No one believes in the ``rule of law'' more than the Texas 
     Police Chiefs Association and the Texas Major Cities Chiefs, 
     which besides Houston include Austin, Arlington, Dallas, Fort 
     Worth and San Antonio. We work tirelessly to make our 
     communities safer, within the confines of the U.S. 
     Constitution, by arresting those who commit criminal actions 
     that threaten our communities. We specifically target those 
     individuals committing violent crimes and arrest anyone who 
     threatens the safety of our communities, regardless of their 
     immigration status.
       Police chiefs across the state work extremely hard to 
     develop law enforcement agencies that build and maintain 
     trust, communication and stronger relationships with minority 
     communities through community-based policing and outreach 
     programs. So we know well that no good can come of Senate 
     Bill 4, which the state House of Representatives, joining the 
     state Senate, passed last week.
       SB 4 requires local law enforcement to take a more active 
     role in immigration enforcement; this will tear down what 
     we've worked so hard to build up. Officers will start 
     inquiring about the immigration status of every person they 
     come in contact with, or worse, only inquire about the 
     immigration status of individuals based on their appearance. 
     This will lead to distrust of police, less cooperation from 
     members of the community and will foster the belief that they 
     cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being 
     subjected to an immigration-status investigation.
       This is a lose-lose situation for everyone.
       Distrust and fear of contacting or assisting the police has 
     already become evident among legal immigrants. Legal 
     immigrants are beginning to avoid contact with the police for 
     fear that they themselves or undocumented family members or 
     friends may become subject to immigration enforcement. Such a 
     divide between the local police and immigrant groups will 
     result in increased crime against immigrants and in the 
     broader community, create a class of silent victims, and 
     eliminate the potential for assistance from migrants in 
     solving crimes or preventing crime.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Law enforcement officers have to be able to abide by 
the law. It is unjust to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they 
serve because Congress disagrees with the enforcement priorities with 
respect to our Nation's immigration laws. And they are right. But they 
also say that they need to build trust in our communities.
  This bill destroys community trust. It also penalizes hardworking 
governments of mayors and county leaders who are, in fact, trying to 
run the government and ensure that victims of domestic violence and 
crime, even as immigrants, are able to be treated in a manner where 
justice is had.
  What about the National Sheriffs' Association or the Texas Police 
Chiefs in Texas' major cities who indicate that this bill will serve no 
good and no good can come to a similar bill in the States?
  Let me say to you, I stand with the Catholic church, and I am not 
Catholic.

[[Page 10156]]

What are our values? This church opposes the idea of our values.
  Let me be very clear as I close. We are doing the sanctuary cities 
bill, but I want to know about the integrity of this place.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003, the ``No 
Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which requires state and local 
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, expands DHS detainer 
authority, and expands detention authority.
  I oppose this bill mainly because it directly violates the 
Constitution of the United States.
  If H.R. 3003 were to become law, it will coerce states and localities 
to cooperate with immigration enforcement, it will hurt victims and 
witnesses to crimes, and ultimately make communities less safe, which 
directly contravenes the stated and alleged goals of this bill.
  Police Chiefs across the nation are responding to less disturbances, 
not because crime is magically disappearing, but because immigrant 
communities are afraid to report them out of fear of being targeted.
  H.R. 3003 will completely strip state and local jurisdictions of 
their ability to enact common-sense policies that breed respect and 
trust and turn local law enforcement into an auxiliary arm of the 
federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
  To ensure compliance, this bill coerces states and localities by 
imposing penalties that will deny federal funding for critical law 
enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime victim 
initiatives.
  This divisive and vindictive administrative policy abridges the Tenth 
Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
  ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.''
  H.R. 3003 also violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against 
unreasonable searches and seizures in respect to the changes it makes 
to DHS's detainer authority.
  It expands upon current DHS detainer practice by broadening the ways 
in which DHS can determine it has probable cause to issue a detainer 
and it significantly expands the time an individual may be held by law 
enforcement.
  The Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment requires a 
judicial finding of probable cause, usually within 48 hours of arrest.
  H.R. 3003, however, allows law enforcement to hold a person up to 96 
hours before DHS takes custody, and there is no mention of when the 
person will even see an immigration judge.
  H.R. 3003 compounds these constitutional violations by eliminating 
the ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent, 
individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral 
decision-maker.
  This bill also authorizes DHS to detain individuals in removal 
proceedings without time limitation and it expands the categories of 
individuals who would be subject to such a detention on a mandatory 
basis.
  These provisions make it substantially more difficult, if not 
impossible, for individuals to obtain release on bond while removal 
proceedings are pending, thus increasing detention costs and separating 
families while they seek to litigate their immigration cases.
  H.R. 3003 is nothing but an anti-immigrant, enforcement-only proposal 
that represents another step in Trump's mass deportation plan.
  Mr. Speaker, rather than forcing state and local officials into a 
one-size-fits-all federal enforcement scheme, Congress and the 
administration should enact legislation and adopt policies that 
integrate unauthorized immigrants into our communities--approaches that 
the American public supports by a wide margin.
  For these reasons, I join with local law enforcement chiefs and faith 
community leaders in denouncing and opposing this mean-spirited, ill-
considered, and un-American legislation.
  I end, Mr. Speaker, by apologizing to Mika Brzezinski, to the press, 
for the horrible words that were said about a bleeding face.
  There is no way that we can entrust this law or any other laws to 
this President of the United States. He has lost the trust, and I will 
vote for nothing until he steps down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  While we have heard a good amount of inflammatory rhetoric, my 
remarks will speak solely to the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of keeping America safe. In less 
than 2 years, over 8,000 undocumented immigrants, all subject to ICE 
detainment, were released because of local noncooperation policies.
  Sixty-three percent of those illegal aliens had prior convictions or 
had been marked a public safety concern. After being released, they 
went on to be rearrested nearly 4,300 times, committing nearly 7,500 
new offenses.
  The facts are clear: States and local governments that do not comply 
with our immigration laws are putting American citizens at risk.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that, in 2014, 75 percent of all 
criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for Federal drug 
offenses were illegal immigrants. As of 2014, illegal immigrants made 
up roughly 3.5 percent of our population but committed over 10 percent 
of all murders.
  Refusing to turn over criminal illegal immigrants poses a threat to 
our society, our safety, and our economy. American citizens pay nearly 
$19 million a day to house and care for the 450,000 criminal immigrants 
in jails and prisons who are all eligible for deportation.
  When cities ignore Federal immigration laws, the results are often 
tragic.
  The sheriff of Travis County, Texas, decided she would only turn over 
illegal aliens who have committed a narrow list of crimes. Her policy 
allowed one illegal alien to be released on bail despite sexually 
abusing his girlfriend's 9-year-old daughter.
  A Cook County sheriff released an illegal immigrant after he served a 
brief domestic assault sentence, despite an ICE detainer. Soon after, 
he went on to kill a 15-year-old girl.
  America wept as 32-year-old Kate Steinle was killed by a stray 
bullet. The illegal immigrant who shot that gun had seven previous 
felony convictions.
  There are thousands more stories of innocent lives lost, of families 
destroyed, and of crimes that could have been prevented. Every day in 
America, another family grieves because of the policies of sanctuary 
cities.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for the protection of our citizens, the safety of 
our communities, the defense of our country, and to ultimately see the 
end of sanctuary cities.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), our Democratic Caucus chair.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Much of the same rhetoric we are hearing right now from the other 
side of the aisle is similar to the same rhetoric we heard back in the 
1840s, 1850s, and 1860s against the Irish when they came to America. We 
heard it said about Italian Americans in the 1880s and 1890s.
  We continue to hear the same type of rhetoric about African Americans 
in our country in terms of the percentage of criminal activity that 
takes place. What we have seen happen is the further incarceration and 
enslavement of African Americans in our Nation today because of similar 
rhetoric.
  I want to make it very clear: ``Immigrant'' and ``criminal'' are not 
synonyms. You make it out to be that way by the passage of this 
legislation.
  Talking about law enforcement, in New York City, James O'Neill, the 
police commissioner, has said this law will make New York City less 
safe than it is today.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 9/11 
happened in my hometown, in my city. Since then, there have been no 
major incidents of terrorism in New York City because they have been 
able to collect information--much of it from the undocumented community 
in our city--to prevent similar events from happening again. That is 
why this bill is so egregious.
  The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect its 
citizens from foreign invasion, foreign attack, terrorist attacks. This 
bill will withhold terrorism money from New York City. It will prevent 
the city of New York from continuing to collect

[[Page 10157]]

the information they and other cities around this country need to 
protect their citizens, to develop the trust that the community has to 
have in its police department and the police department in its 
communities.
  That is how law enforcement works, that is how they catch the 
criminals, and that is how they help the Federal Government deport 
criminals who have committed criminal offenses in a city like New York.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire at this time how much time 
is remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, across the country, more than 300 
municipalities have adopted policies to limit local law enforcement 
cooperation with Federal authorities, making it harder to keep our 
families and communities safe.
  Back in my home State of Tennessee, the Nashville City Council has 
recently been advancing legislation to become one of these sanctuary 
cities. Giving Federal funds to sanctuary cities defies logic and it 
demands attention.
  Yesterday, I offered an amendment to expand the bill before us today 
so that sanctuary cities would no longer have access to Community 
Development Block Grants and certain other economic development grants, 
as well, that send more than about 300 billion taxpayer dollars a year 
to local communities.
  On its website, the Community Development Block Grant program says 
its purpose is to provide services to vulnerable communities and 
address issues that ``pose an immediate threat to the health or welfare 
of the community.''
  What population is more vulnerable than a 6-year-old girl in Lebanon, 
Tennessee, who was sexually molested while she was sleeping? Just last 
month, charges were brought against a criminal illegal immigrant for 
repeatedly breaking into her room at night and making videos while he 
assaulted her. The evil individual had been in police custody before.
  For Kate Steinle, who has been talked about many times on the floor, 
her killer had a criminal record of not one, two, or three, but seven 
felonies. He had been deported not once, twice, or three times, but 
five times. Is that who liberal legislators around the country want to 
give ``sanctuary''?
  We need more communication and cooperation between local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement officers who are trying to keep our communities 
safe, not less. It is time to stop giving taxpayer dollars to these 
cities. I am voting for this bill today to do just that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
ranking member, for yielding.
  I don't know what our friend from Tennessee was talking about. I am 
not here as a liberal legislator. I am here as a local government 
person. I spent 14 years in local government.
  We are not sanctuary cities. We are trying to solve crimes by seeking 
cooperation from the immigrant community. This bill will make it 
harder. Most of our local police chiefs would tell you that--if you 
would listen to them.
  Oddly enough, the Members supporting this bill are the same Members 
who sanctimoniously decry Federal mandates and overreach--except when 
they want one. Here we are, dictating how local governments should 
implement Federal immigration laws.
  At the local level, we know effective, community-based policing 
relies on trust between the police and communities. This bill would 
erode that collaboration and that trust.
  How can we expect our Nation's immigrants to turn to the police if 
they witness or fall victim to a crime if they are afraid of being 
deported or separated from their families?
  The bill will punish local police departments and those 
relationships. It should be defeated. This local government guy will 
oppose this bad policy bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was at the White House 
with President Trump and the parents and relatives of those daughters 
and sons who were killed by those who are here illegally. The stories 
were very heavy. They should weigh on all of us.
  One story that was shared was given by Michelle Root about her 
beautiful daughter who was struck down and killed in a senseless way by 
someone here illegally. Michelle is in the gallery here today, and she 
is a great advocate.
  In late January 2016, Sarah's parents, Michelle and Scott Root, 
started their day with joy. On that day, their beautiful daughter, 
Sarah, graduated. She had the whole world ahead of her. But for 
Michelle and Scott, the day ended with loss and tragedy. It was the 
unimaginable loss of their daughter. Sarah was killed by a drunk driver 
here illegally. It is so senseless. Sarah had her whole life in front 
of her.
  Through incompetence and uncertainty about the law or the policy, or 
both--but for sure, a lack of common sense--Sarah's killer was 
released. Today, Sarah's killer is free.
  Today, Sarah's parents, Michelle and Scott, and Sarah's brother, 
Scotty, fight for Sarah's justice. They fight for her honor. They fight 
to make sure no other parent or loved one has to go through the tragic 
ordeal they had to go through.

                              {time}  1500

  My vote today is about policy, but it is in honor of Sarah Root. It 
is hard to find a love stronger than a parent has for their child. 
Sarah will always be loved and certainly not forgotten by her family 
and friends and those who never even met her. She has touched their 
hearts. They continue to advocate, and so must we.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, my colleagues in Iowa and 
across the border in Nebraska who support this legislation and fought 
for it to be incorporated into this bill.
  God is taking care of Sarah now. Her memory lives on. I urge the 
passage of this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is not in order to refer to persons in 
the gallery.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a former justice to the Texas Supreme Court.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only sanctuary involved here today is 
the sanctuary that this sorry bill provides for prejudice. This is the 
Trump counterpart to the outrageous SB4 that Governor Greg Abbott has 
been promoting in Texas. It all goes back to the rhetoric of last year 
about the ``bad hombres'' and the attacks on Mexico and Mexicans.
  I will tell you, I want the bad hombres off the street no matter 
where they come from, but I look to my local police chiefs, to my local 
sheriffs and law enforcement officers to tell me what the best way is 
to protect our families from crime. They say maintaining the confidence 
of the immigrant community is vital, and that measures like this, which 
simply have politicians in Washington interfering with and attempting 
to intimidate local law enforcement officers, do exactly the opposite 
of what all these speeches claim that they do.
  Anti-immigrant hysteria, what a way to leave for July Fourth from a 
Congress that has accomplished practically nothing but to attack 
immigrants as we depart instead of standing by and supporting local law 
enforcement and making our communities safe.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and 
point out that many, many of the victims of these crimes are Hispanic, 
African American, and others, and they were seated around the Cabinet 
table at the White House yesterday pleading for this legislation 
because they had lost their loved ones. They would much rather have 
been able to rewind the

[[Page 10158]]

tape and be with those loved ones who were killed by people who were 
illegally present in the United States. The victims would never have 
suffered if our laws had simply been enforced.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Dunn).
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3003, the No 
Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
  Congress has a responsibility to protect the rule of law in our 
country and to provide for the safety of our citizens. The American 
people overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities and believe that we 
should be doing more to enforce our Federal immigration laws.
  The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act clarifies the authority of the 
Department of Homeland Security to order the detainment of illegal 
immigrants arrested for crimes until they can be processed for 
deportation.
  It also cuts off certain Federal grants to cities and States that 
violate Federal immigration law. It is simple: If you don't comply with 
the Federal immigration law, you are not eligible for certain Federal 
grants.
  It is time for us to enforce our immigration laws.
  National attention was brought to the consequences of the sanctuary 
city policies by the death of Kate Steinle, who was killed by an 
illegal immigrant who had previously been convicted of seven felonies 
and deported five times. If the city of San Francisco had worked with 
the Federal Government to enforce the Federal immigration law instead 
of releasing this criminal, Kate Steinle would be alive today.
  Our current system of laws failed Kate and all those who have died at 
the hands of convicted felons in this country illegally. The people who 
I am honored to represent do not understand why some American cities 
get to flout the law and not cooperate with Federal officials. This 
legislation makes it clear that they don't, that sanctuary cities are 
illegal. By holding these jurisdictions accountable and stopping 
sanctuary cities, we will make Americans of every background safer on 
our streets.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a dedicated civil rights leader.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3003.
  In jurisdictions within my district, Cook County, cities like 
Chicago, Evanston, and Skokie, which are immigrant rich, we have 
adopted sanctuary cities, sometimes called welcoming cities, ordinances 
in order to reassure immigrants that they can, with safety, talk to law 
enforcement within our jurisdictions.
  Skokie Mayor George Van Dusen said: ``It has taken the Village of 
Skokie years--decades really--to form the bridges that we have of trust 
with our immigrant community.''
  These policies work. A January study found that sanctuary cities tend 
to be safer and have stronger economies than not.
  This bill would push communities to abandon sanctuary city policies, 
breaking down that hard-earned trust between immigrants and law 
enforcement. Turning law enforcement into immigration enforcement makes 
cities less safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it makes immigrants less likely to 
report crimes. This bill protects criminals in our communities and not 
victims.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for safer communities and vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for making sure 
this bill gets to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am registering my support for Kate's Law and H.R. 
3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals--for Criminals--Act. I support 
these bills for the sake of Kate Steinle and every single one of those 
who share her tragic fate.
  She was murdered in broad daylight by a violent, criminal illegal 
alien. This was an easily preventable and heartbreaking crime, and we 
simply cannot fail the American people by refusing to act on these 
bills.
  The government's first responsibility is the security and protection 
of our homeland, a duty that should not be abdicated or yielded based 
on convenience.
  In 2011--2011--a GAO study found that aliens committed more than 
25,000 homicides, more than 69,000 sexual offenses, 14,000 kidnappings, 
42,000 robberies, and 213,000 assaults, among other offenses. Every 
single one of these is too many.
  Very few things in this world we can get at 100 percent, but these 
are 100 percent preventable if these people would not have been here. 
These are preventable crimes, completely preventable, and we must stop 
the willful neglect of complacency by government officials who refuse 
to enforce existing--this is not new. This is existing law we are 
asking them to enforce, we are requiring them to enforce.
  According to a March 2017 Washington Times article, nearly 500 
jurisdictions have sanctuary policies that block--that block--that 
limit ICE from apprehending criminal aliens.
  A January 2017 article from the Washington Examiner reported that, 
from January 2014 to September 2015, sanctuary jurisdictions rejected 
17,000 ICE detainers. Those are 17,000 criminals that are out on the 
street that we know about that we let go.
  Adding insult to injury, these sanctuary jurisdictions seek Federal 
funds to help them defy Federal law enforcement efforts to remove the 
dangerous criminal aliens from the streets.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to put Americans first, and we support the 
restoration of law and order by supporting these proposals.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the 
National Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Immigration Task 
Force; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the 
National Association of Counties in opposition to this bill.

         National Fraternal Order of Police,
                                     Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and 
     Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any 
     amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law 
     enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or 
     resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an 
     effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The 
     House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and 
     Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program 
     administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
     Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
     Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered 
     by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
       The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly 
     believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should 
     cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said, 
     withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
     which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety 
     efforts.
       Local police departments answer to local civilian 
     government and it is the local government which enacts 
     statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement 
     officers have no more say in these matters than any other 
     citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be 
     argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to 
     pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out 
     lawful orders at

[[Page 10159]]

     the direction of their commanders and the civilian government 
     that employs them. It is unjust to penalize law enforcement 
     and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with 
     their enforcement priorities with respect to our nation's 
     immigration laws.
       The FOP issued a statement in January of this year 
     regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary 
     cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The 
     President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law 
     enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the 
     political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S. 
     Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the 
     public safety impact without an automatic suspension from 
     Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is 
     no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's 
     existing policy.
       The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress, 
     which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and 
     we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce 
     or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for 
     local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect 
     policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find 
     another way to do so.
       On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R. 
     3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to 
     find a better way to improve public safety in our 
     communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior 
     Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any 
     further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                                   Law Enforcement


                                       Immigration Task Force,

                                                    June 28, 2017.
       Dear Member of Congress: As law enforcement leaders 
     dedicated to preserving the safety and security of our 
     communities, we have concerns about legislative proposals 
     that would attempt to impose punitive, ``one-size-fits-all'' 
     policies on state and local law enforcement. Rather than 
     strengthening state and local law enforcement by providing us 
     with the tools to work with the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) in a manner that is responsive to the needs of 
     our communities, these proposals would represent a step 
     backwards.
       Attempts to defund so-called sanctuary cities regularly 
     sweep too broadly, punishing jurisdictions that engage in 
     well-established community policing practices or adhere to 
     federal court decisions that have found federal immigration 
     detainers to violate constitutional protections. We oppose 
     these approaches and urge Congress to work to encourage--
     rather than compel--law enforcement agency cooperation within 
     our federal system.
       We believe that law enforcement should not cut corners. 
     Multiple federal courts have questioned the legality and 
     constitutionality of federal immigration detainers that are 
     not accompanied by a criminal warrant signed by a judge. Even 
     though the legality of such immigration holds is doubtful, 
     some have proposed requiring states and localities to enforce 
     them, shielding them from lawsuits. While this approach would 
     reduce potential legal liability faced by some jurisdictions 
     and departments, we are concerned these proposals would still 
     require our agencies and officers carry out federal 
     directives that could violate the U.S. Constitution, which we 
     are sworn to follow.
       Immigration enforcement is, first and foremost, a federal 
     responsibility. Making our communities safer means better 
     defining roles and improving relationships between local law 
     enforcement and federal immigration authorities. But in 
     attempting to defund ``sanctuary cities'' and require state 
     and local law enforcement agencies. Local control has been a 
     beneficial approach for law enforcement for decades--having 
     the federal government compel state and local law enforcement 
     to carry out new and sometimes problematic tasks undermines 
     the delicate federal balance and will harm locally-based 
     policing.
       Rather than requiring state and local law enforcement 
     agencies to engage in additional immigration enforcement 
     activities, Congress should focus on overdue reforms of the 
     broken immigration system to allow state and local law 
     enforcement to focus their resources on true threats--
     dangerous criminals and criminal organizations. We believe 
     that state and local law enforcement must work together with 
     federal authorities to protect our communities and that we 
     can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of 
     immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the 
     removal of valuable grant funding that contributes to the 
     health and well-being of communities across the nation would 
     not make our communities safer and would not fix any part of 
     our broken immigraton system.
       Our immigration problem is a national problem deserving of 
     a national approach, and we continue to recognize that what 
     our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative 
     solution--broad-based immigration reform.
           Sincerely,
       Chief Chris Magnus, Tucson, AZ; Chief Sylvis Moir, Tempe, 
     AZ; Ret. Chief Roberto Villasenor, Tucson, AZ; Chief Charlie 
     Beck, Los Angeles, CA; Ret. Chief James Lopez, Los Angeles 
     County, CA; Sheriff Margaret Mims, Fresno County, CA; Sheriff 
     Mike Chitwood, Volusia County, FL; Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald, 
     Story County, IA; Chief Wayne Jerman, Cedar Rapids, IA; 
     Sheriff Bill McCarthy, Polk County, IA.
       Public Safety Director, Mark Prosser, Storm Lake, IA; 
     Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Johnson County, IA; Chief Mike 
     Tupper, Marshalltown, IA; Chief William Bones, Voise, ID; 
     Ret. Chief Ron Teachman, South Bend, IN; Ret. Chief James 
     Hawkins, Garden City, KS; Commissioner William Evans, Boston, 
     MA; Chief Ken Ferguson, Framingham, MA; Chief Brian Kyes, 
     Chelsea, MA; Chief Tom Manger, Montgomery County, MD.
       Chief Todd Axtell, Saint Paul, MN; Sheriff Eli Rivera, 
     Cheshire County, NH; Chief Cel Rivera, Lorain, OH; Public 
     Safety Commissioner Steven Pare, Providdence, RI; Chief 
     William Holbrook, Columbia, SC; Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland 
     County, SC; Ret. Chief Fred Fletcher, Chattanooga, TN; Chief 
     Art Acevedo, Houston, TX.
       Sheriff Edward Gonzalez, Harris County, TX; Sheriff Sally 
     Hernandez, Travis County, TX; Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas 
     County, TX; Ret. Chief Chris Burbank, Salt Lake City, UT; 
     Sheriff John Urquhart, King County, WA; Asst. Chief Randy 
     Gaber, Madison, WI; Chief Michael Koval, Madison, WI; Chief 
     Todd Thomas, Appleton, WI.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                     Cleveland, OH, June 28, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 19,000 cities and 
     towns represented by the National League of Cities (NLC), I 
     am writing to express our strong opposition to the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003). The bill, which 
     was made public just recently, completely bypassed the House 
     Judiciary Committee and includes provisions that will result 
     in violations of due process and the Fourth and Tenth 
     Amendments to the Constitution.
       We are very troubled by the fact that the bill--which 
     preempts local authority, jeopardizes public safety, and 
     exposes local governments to litigation and potential 
     liability--was drafted with no input from local officials.
       NLC has consistently opposed federal legislation that would 
     impose harmful sanctions on local governments--sanctions that 
     prohibit or restrict compliance when a detainer request is 
     issued by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, NLC has 
     significant concerns with the provisions in H.R. 3003 that:
       1. Undermine local government's authority to govern their 
     public safety and local law enforcement programs. The bill 
     would prevent localities from establishing laws or policies 
     that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or 
     cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. H.R. 3003 
     would strip local governments ability to enact common-sense 
     crime prevention policies that ensure victims of crime will 
     seek protection and report crimes.
       2. Penalize local governments that fail to comply with 
     federal immigration efforts with the denial of federal 
     funding for critical law enforcement, national security, drug 
     treatment, and crime victim initiatives, including the State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (COPS), and Byrne JAG programs that provide 
     hundreds of millions of dollars to localities nationwide.
       3. Compel local governments to honor Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests, even though the 
     federal courts have determined the that ICE use of detainers 
     violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be 
     held liable for honoring them.
       4. Expand ICE's detainer authority requiring localities to 
     hold undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours, which is 
     twice what is currently allowed even if probable cause has 
     not been shown. The bill also does not provide any additional 
     funding to local governments to cover the costs associated 
     with detaining the undocumented immigrants. Requiring cities 
     to shoulder the financial burden being forced upon them with 
     no input impacts our ability to pay for essential 
     infrastructure and services such as roads, schools and 
     libraries.
       5. Create a ``private right of action'' that would allow 
     crime victims or their family members to sue localities if 
     the crime was committed by someone who was released by the 
     locality that did not honor an ICE detainer request. This 
     provision could allow frivolous lawsuits against a local 
     government by anyone who alleges that they were a victim of a 
     crime committed by an immigrant.
       6. Compel local governments to utilize their local law 
     enforcement resources to implement federal civil immigration 
     enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's 
     ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not 
     permit the federal government to force counties and cities to 
     allocate local resources, including police officers, 
     technology, and personnel, to enforce

[[Page 10160]]

     federal immigration law. The federal government also cannot 
     withhold funds from localities refusing to participate in 
     federal efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the 
     purpose of the federal program, or if the sanctions are 
     punitive in nature.
       Since the inception of the United States of America, lawful 
     immigrants and refugees have played a vital role in the 
     civic, economic and social life of cities. We recognize that 
     local governments address issues associated with federal 
     immigration laws in a variety of ways that best meet the 
     needs of all their residents. Some cities provide greater 
     leniency towards undocumented immigrants who do not violate 
     state and local laws by not dedicating municipal resources to 
     enforce federal immigration laws. Unfortunately, these cities 
     are wrongfully characterized as safe havens for undocumented 
     immigrants who violate state and local laws.
       We believe the power to enforce federal immigration laws 
     remains exclusively a federal power and we strongly oppose 
     federal efforts to commandeer our local law enforcement to 
     take on the duties of federal immigration enforcement agents.
       Our nation's local elected officials call on you to do the 
     right thing and vote against H.R. 3003 when it is considered 
     on the floor. We urge you to move beyond punitive bills like 
     H.R. 3003 and work with us to develop a positive legislation 
     that will fix our broken immigration system and make our 
     cities safer.
       Thank you for your leadership and for willingness to stand 
     up for America's cities by voting against this legislation 
     that would impose harmful sanctions on local governments.
           Sincerely,
     Matt Zone,
       President, National League of Cities, Ward 15 Councilman.
                                  ____

                                      The United States Conference


                                                    of Mayors,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: I write to register the strong 
     opposition of the nation's mayors to H.R. 3003, a partisan 
     bill that seeks to punish so-called ``sanctuary cities,'' 
     which is expected to be considered by the full House this 
     week.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors represents well over a 
     thousand mayors and nearly 150 million people. Today, we 
     concluded the 85th Annual Meeting of The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors and adopted policy that reinforces and builds on 
     previous positions we have taken which oppose provisions in 
     this bill. Specifically, the nation's mayors:
       urge members of Congress to withdraw legislation that 
     attempts to cut local law enforcement funding necessary to 
     ensure the safety of our communities, indemnify conduct that 
     violates the constitutional rights afforded to both United 
     States citizens and immigrant populations, and further 
     criminalizes immigration and infringes on the rights of 
     immigrant;
       oppose punitive policies that limit local control and 
     discretion, and urge instead that Congress and the 
     Administration pursue immigration enforcement policies that 
     recognize that local law enforcement has limited resources 
     and community trust is critical to local law enforcement and 
     the safety of our communities;
       oppose federal policies that commandeer local law 
     enforcement or require local authorities to violate, or be 
     placed at risk of violating, a person's Fourth Amendment 
     rights; expend limited resources to act as immigration 
     agents; or otherwise assist federal immigration authorities 
     beyond what is determined by local policy.
       H.R. 3003 would do all of these things and more:
       It would jeopardize public safety by withholding critical 
     public safety funding from jurisdictions that tell their 
     police officers not to ask an individual their immigration 
     status. Many departments have such policies to encourage 
     crime victims and witnesses to report crimes and to build 
     trust with immigrant communities.
       It would put jurisdictions at risk of violating an 
     individual's Fourth Amendment rights by establishing probable 
     cause standards for ICE's issuance of detainers that do not 
     require a judicial determination of probable cause. Numerous 
     federal courts have found that continued detention under an 
     ICE detainer, absent probable cause, would state a claim for 
     a violation of the Fourth Amendment and subject the detaining 
     officer or jurisdiction to civil liability.
       While it says it would provide immunity to jurisdictions 
     which comply with detainers and hold them harmless in any 
     suits filed against them, they would still be subject to 
     Fourth Amendment challenges.
       Further compelling and expanding compliance with certain 
     enforcement provisions, such as immigration detainers, and 
     cutting off federal funding to jurisdictions which do not 
     comply with these provisions likely conflict with the Tenth 
     Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for our cities and their residents 
     and for our nation. It would jeopardize public safety, 
     preempt local authority, and expose local governments to 
     litigation and potential findings of damages. America's 
     mayors call on you to do the right thing and vote against 
     H.R. 3003 when it is considered on the floor.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges you instead to focus on 
     positive legislation that will fix our broken immigration 
     system and make our cities safer. The nation's mayors pledge 
     to work with you on bipartisan immigration reform legislation 
     that will fix our nation's broken immigration system. We need 
     to move beyond punitive bills like H.R. 3003 and develop an 
     immigration system that works for our nation, our cities and 
     our people.
       To make our cities safer we urge you to consider 
     legislation that will help us to fight crime and prevent 
     terrorism. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities 
     Chiefs Association agree that to make the streets of America 
     safe, Congress must act to strengthen bonds between 
     communities and police, expand homeland security grants, 
     invest in mental health and substance abuse services, reduce 
     gun violence, and reform the criminal justice system and 
     strengthen reentry services.
           Sincerely,

                                         Mitchell J. Landrieu,

                                             Mayor of New Orleans,
     President.
                                  ____

         Major County Sheriffs of America and National Association 
           of Counties,
                                                    June 29, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, Majority Leader McCarthy and 
     Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer: On behalf of the Major 
     County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) and the National 
     Association of Counties (NACo), we write to express our 
     commitment to work with Congress and the Administration on 
     measures to prevent crime and violence, but are concerned 
     that H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is not an 
     effective approach. While we applaud measures to protect the 
     public from repeat, violent predators, we cannot support 
     further cuts in funding that weaken crime prevention efforts, 
     officer recruitment, and safety and wellness programs.
       Most sheriffs want to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement (ICE) so that it may remove criminal 
     illegal aliens from the United States, but sheriffs must 
     follow the law that has rendered current ICE requests 
     illegal. Without proper arrest authority, sheriffs cannot 
     willfully disregard an individual's 4th amendment rights as 
     articulated in these court cases. Make no mistake, the 
     American public has a right to know which jurisdictions are 
     blatantly ignoring the rule of law and are endangering 
     community safety and they should be held accountable. If a 
     jurisdiction is following the law of its state or a binding 
     court ruling, it is misguided for Congress to cut funding for 
     programs that support State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in nearly every jurisdiction in this country.
       ICE's removal of illegal aliens who are committing crimes 
     in our communities is important to ensure public safety. 
     Their removal mitigates the drain on sheriffs' resources by 
     ensuring these criminals are not sitting in our jails and 
     that our deputies are not continually investigating their 
     crimes. As leaders in law enforcement, the MCSA been working 
     collaboratively with the Department of Homeland Security to 
     find an agreeable solution that is lawful, effects good 
     public safety policy, and allows ICE to effectively do its 
     job of removing criminal illegal aliens from our country.
       We know Members of Congress believe that efforts to stop 
     violence in American cities must be strengthened, not 
     weakened. While we appreciate Congress' support for law 
     enforcement, we strongly feel a law enforcement grant penalty 
     solution would not only negatively impact law enforcement 
     efforts across the country, but also not achieve its intended 
     purpose.
     Very Respectfully,
     Michael J. Bouchard,
       Sheriff, Oakland County (MI), Vice President--Government 
     Affairs, Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA).
     Matthew D. Chase,

[[Page 10161]]

       Executive Director, National Association of Counties 
     (NACo).

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 3003 because, if this 
bill passed, it would punish our communities more than it would punish 
the criminals. As written, this bill would deny critical funding for 
our police departments.
  As a former 20-year prosecutor in local counties, I know firsthand 
how much our local police rely on Federal funding not just to do their 
job, but to be safe when they keep our communities safe. Any decrease 
in any sort of funding would decrease the safety of our officers as 
they strive to protect and serve our communities. This law will not 
only affect our police officers' safety, but it will negatively affect 
the sense of security in our communities.
  Yes, the underlying intent of the law is to make it easier for ICE to 
target undocumented people who are criminals--I get it--but it is not 
that simple.
  In the past few months, my district has seen two large-scale raids by 
ICE. Yes, they swept up criminals, but they also snagged collaterals, 
law-abiding people who were here in the wrong place at the right time. 
Those operations cast a complete pall over the community that affected 
our ability to enforce our laws.
  As a gang prosecutor, over and over I experienced people who were 
afraid to come forward out of fear of retaliation. Now they are afraid 
of the police, afraid of the courts, and afraid of our government. That 
is why I am opposed to H.R. 3003.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reflect back on 
why localities adopt these community trust policies.
  The chairman of the committee mentioned somebody in San Francisco who 
is suing the city. In a way, that shows the efficacy of the trust 
policies.
  This man, Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno, was a victim of crime. His truck was 
stolen. He went into the police department to report that his truck was 
stolen. There was a removal order that was 10 or 20 years old. He has 
an American citizen child. He is a working person. When he went 
outside, he was picked up by ICE.
  I think what that tells other people who are victims of crime who 
might have an outstanding removal order is: Don't report the crime. It 
is one thing if you have lost your truck. It has been stolen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Not that I am for stealing trucks, but here is a bigger 
problem.
  The cities of Houston and Los Angeles report a dramatic drop-off in 
reports of sexual violence. Why? Because immigrants are afraid to 
report; and not just because they might be undocumented, but they might 
have a sister or a next-door neighbor or a spouse who is undocumented, 
even if they are a citizen. So what has happened is with these threats 
come an unwillingness of immigrants to report crime, to be witnesses to 
crime, to keep our communities safe.
  These stories that we have heard of the victims of crime are 
heartbreaking, but we are not without remedies under current law.
  The most important law in our country is the Constitution. The 
Constitution includes the Fourth Amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LOFGREN. The Constitution is the most important law we have. We 
read it aloud on the first day of our Congress. It includes the Fourth 
Amendment, which requires probable cause and warrants. A bunch of 
courts have made that ruling relative to detainers.
  Well, that doesn't leave the Federal Government without remedies. Get 
a warrant. There is not a jurisdiction in the United States that will 
not honor a judicial warrant. Don't blame the local police. Look to the 
Department of Homeland Security for why they have dropped the ball and 
been unwilling to take the steps that are well within their authority 
today to make sure if there is someone that they need, they get a 
warrant and they obtain that person for whatever is the next step in 
their process.
  To somehow suggest that this misguided bill is the answer is a big 
mistake.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
  Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill today. I 
stand in support of the rule of law. I stand in support of our 
institutions.
  I also stand in memory of Sarah Root, a young woman who was murdered 
by a drunk driver on January 16. She was killed in my district--or 
Nebraska 02--a short time after graduating from Bellevue University 
with a 4.0 grade point average, with a bright future ahead of her. She 
was loved by her parents and her extended family. If you see her 
picture, that beautiful smile would warm any room.
  The perpetrator was here illegally from Honduras. He posted bail and 
never was seen again. ICE failed to hold him, and justice was denied. 
We can't let this happen again.
  The bill today will fix this. We can't let a travesty of justice like 
this ever happen again. Our systems have to hold people accountable. 
When ICE lets people go like this and they leave, a travesty of justice 
occurs.
  Today we stand with Michelle Root, the mother of Sarah Root, who is 
here, and we stand with Scott Root. We remember Sarah Root, and we say: 
Never again.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 is not making our communities safer. If it 
was, the bill's sponsors would have heeded the strong opposition of 
organizations like the National Fraternal Order of Police, who stated 
that, ``withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
which have no policymaking role--hurts public safety efforts;'' and the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, who cautioned, ``H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for 
our cities and their residents and for our Nation. It would jeopardize 
public safety, preempt local authority, and expose local governments to 
litigation and potential findings of damage.''
  Instead, this legislation is a down payment on the President's and 
the Republican majority's mass deportation plan.
  This bill, and the one that we will debate later today, is a portion 
of the mass deportation bill known as the ``Davis-Oliver Act,'' which 
has been cited as a priority for the Trump administration, and is 
supported by anti-immigrant groups, such as NumbersUSA and the Center 
for Immigration Studies.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The gentleman from Virginia has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, let me be clear: the only law enforcement agencies that risk 
losing any Federal grants because of this legislation are those 
agencies that, without any outside compulsion, deliberately choose to 
violate Federal law by outright prohibiting their law enforcement 
officers from voluntarily communicating with ICE and cooperating with 
it in the enforcement of Federal law.
  Second, let me also be clear that this bill does not require State 
and local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers, and it 
does not seek to cut off any Federal grants to jurisdictions that 
choose not to comply.

[[Page 10162]]

  Finally, it is a long-settled principle of constitutional law. And 
let me remind you that all of these law enforcement officers vowed to 
defend the Constitution, and the Constitution grants supremacy to 
Federal immigration law.
  When there is a conflict with Federal immigration law, State laws 
that are in conflict are invalid, preempted by Federal law under the 
10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment, State and local law 
enforcement agencies have no obligation to comply with unconstitutional 
provisions of State or local law that asks them to violate title 8, 
United States Code, section 1373.
  Then, again, getting back to the amazing news that we have, the city 
of San Francisco has just agreed to pay $190,000 to an illegal alien 
because the San Francisco sheriff complied with an ICE detainer and 
turned the alien over to ICE, apparently in violation of San Francisco 
policy. That individual, under Federal law, because he was the victim 
of a crime, will be eligible to apply for a U visa.
  Respect for the rule of law is the way to keep communities safe. 
Respect for the rule of law is the way to make sure that people like 
Kate Steinle are not murdered in the city of San Francisco, as we have 
heard of other murders all during the debate today, by people who are 
unlawfully present in the United States. Therefore, they are all 
preventable crimes.
  Law enforcement in this country needs to cooperate. Most law 
enforcement officers want that to be done. Let's support them, let's 
support this legislation, and make sure that the rule of law is upheld.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
additional letters in opposition to H.R. 3003. These are additional 
letters of opposition that I mentioned earlier on H.R. 3003.

                                                    June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on 
     Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
     COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
       The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare 
     of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our 
     parishes include those with and without immigration status, 
     unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of 
     crime in the United States, including domestic violence, 
     armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of 
     fostering cooperation and information-sharing between 
     immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
       We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on 
     local governments that we fear--and that many of them have 
     warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law 
     enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local 
     law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure 
     public safety in all communities.
       Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to 
     jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law 
     enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and 
     naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
     compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network, 
     including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the 
     federal government on a number of Department of Justice and 
     Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including 
     disaster response and recovery, naturalization and 
     citizenship services, and services for the immigrant, 
     including victims of human trafficking, and domestic 
     violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the 
     protection and promotion of the human person and in some 
     instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these 
     important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not 
     humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
       Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion 
     of incarceration and does not include adequate protections 
     for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or 
     seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable 
     efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent 
     criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal 
     by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal 
     re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in 
     these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that 
     important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to 
     prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent 
     crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry 
     or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does 
     not advance the common good nor will it ensure that 
     communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as 
     introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum 
     seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented 
     themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from 
     violence), from being able to access protection, and instead 
     face fines, imprisonment or both.
       We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of 
     a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration 
     reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family 
     unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs 
     and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and 
     security.
       The United States has a long and proud history of 
     leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their 
     circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready 
     to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to 
     this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of 
     our views in this regard.
           Sincerely,
     Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,
       Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
     Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD.,
       President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA.
                                  ____

                                       National Task Force to End,


                                 Sexual and Domestic Violence,

                                                    June 27, 2017.
       The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (NTF), comprised of national leadership organizations 
     advocating on behalf of sexual assault and domestic violence 
     victims and representing hundreds of organizations across the 
     country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence 
     receive the protections they deserve, write to express our 
     deep concerns about the impact that H.R. 3003, the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, or ``Kate's 
     Law,'' will have on victims fleeing or recovering from sexual 
     assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, and on 
     communities at large.
       This year is the twenty-third anniversary of the bipartisan 
     Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') which has, since it was 
     first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant 
     victims of domestic and sexual violence. H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will have the effect of punishing immigrant survivors 
     and their children and pushing them into the shadows and into 
     danger, undermining the very purpose of VAWA. Specifically, 
     the nation's leading national organizations that address 
     domestic and sexual assault oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 
     because:
       Community trust policies are critical tools for increasing 
     community safety. Laws that seek to intertwine the federal 
     immigration and local law enforcement systems will undermine 
     the Congressional purpose of protections enacted under VAWA 
     and will have the chilling effect of pushing immigrant 
     victims into the shadows and undermining public safety. 
     Immigration enforcement must be implemented in a way that 
     supports local community policing and sustains community 
     trust in working with local law enforcement. H.R. 3003 runs 
     contrary to community policing efforts and will deter 
     immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors not 
     only from reporting crimes, but also from seeking help for 
     themselves and their children. While H.R. 3003 does not 
     require that local law enforcement arrest or report immigrant 
     victims or witnesses of criminal activity, the language in 
     the bill provides no restriction prohibiting such practices.
       Perpetrators use fear of deportation as tool of abuse. 
     Local policies that minimize the intertwining of local law 
     enforcement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (ICE) help protect the most vulnerable victims by creating 
     trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community, 
     which in turn help protect entire communities. Abusers and 
     traffickers use the fear of deportation of their victims as a 
     tool to silence and trap them. If immigrants are afraid to 
     call the police because of fear of deportation, they become 
     more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Not only are the 
     individual victims and their children harmed, but their fear 
     of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting 
     violent perpetrators or seeking protection and, as a result, 
     dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.
       As VAWA recognizes, immigrant victims of violent crimes 
     often do not contact law enforcement due to fear that they 
     will be deported. Immigrants are already afraid of contacting 
     the police and HR 3003 proposes to further intertwine federal 
     immigration and local law enforcement systems will only 
     exacerbate this fear. The result is that perpetrators will be 
     able to continue to harm others, both immigrant and U.S. 
     Citizen victims alike. Since January of 2017, victim 
     advocates have been describing the immense fear expressed by 
     immigrant victims and their reluctance to reach out for help 
     from police. A recent survey of over 700 advocates and 
     attorneys at domestic violence and sexual assault programs 
     indicate that immigrant victims are expressing heightened 
     fears and concerns about immigration enforcement, with 78 
     percent of advocates and

[[Page 10163]]

     attorneys reporting that victims are describing fear of 
     contacting the police; 75 percent of them reporting that 
     victims are afraid of going to court; and 43 percent 
     reporting working with immigrant victims who are choosing not 
     to move forward with criminal charges or obtaining protective 
     orders.
       In addition, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie 
     Beck, reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among 
     Latinos has dropped significantly this year, possibly due to 
     concerns that police interaction could result in deportation. 
     According to Chief Beck, reports of sexual assault have 
     dropped 25 percent among Los Angeles' Latino population since 
     the beginning of the year compared to a three percent drop 
     among non-Latino victims. Similarly, reports of spousal abuse 
     among Latinos fell by about 10 percent among Latinos whereas 
     the decline among non-Latinos was four percent. The Houston 
     Police Department reported in April that the number of 
     Hispanics reporting rape is down 42.8 percent from last year. 
     In Denver, CO, the Denver City Attorney has reported that 
     some domestic violence victims are declining to testify in 
     court. As of late February, the City Attorney's Office had 
     dropped four cases because the victims fear that ICE officers 
     will arrest and deport them. Both the City Attorney and 
     Aurora Police Chief have spoken on the importance of having 
     trust with the immigrant community in order to maintain 
     public safety and prosecute crime.
       H.R. 3003 Will Unfairly Punish Entire communities.
       H.R. 3003 punishes localities that follow Constitutional 
     guidelines and refuse to honor detainer requests that are not 
     supported by due process mandates. H.R. 3003 likely covers 
     more than 600 jurisdictions across the country, most of which 
     do not characterize their policies to follow constitutional 
     mandates as ``sanctuary'' policies. H.R. 3003 penalizes 
     jurisdictions by eliminating their access to various federal 
     grants, including federal law enforcement grants, such as the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and 
     other federal grants related to law enforcement or 
     immigration, such as those that fund forensic rape kit 
     analysis. Withholding federal law enforcement funding would, 
     ironically, undermine the ability of local jurisdictions to 
     combat and prevent crime in their communities.
       In addition, the fiscal impact of both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will result in limited federal law enforcement resources 
     being further reduced as a result of shifting funding from 
     enforcing federal criminal laws addressing violent crimes, 
     including those protecting victims of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, and human trafficking, to the detention and 
     prosecution of many non-violent immigration law violaters.
       H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 Will Unfairly Punish Victims.
       By greatly expanding mandatory detention and expanding 
     criminal penalties for reentry, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will 
     have harsh consequences for immigrant survivors. Victims of 
     human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are 
     often at risk of being arrested and convicted. In recognition 
     of this fact, existing ICE guidance cites the example of when 
     police respond to a domestic violence call, both parties may 
     be arrested or a survivor who acted in self-defense may be 
     wrongly accused. In addition, if the abuser speaks English 
     better than the survivor, or if other language or cultural 
     barriers (or fear of retaliation from the abuser) prevent the 
     survivor from fully disclosing the abuse suffered, a survivor 
     faces charges and tremendous pressure to plead guilty 
     (without being advised about the long-term consequences) in 
     order to be released from jail and reunited with her 
     children. In addition, victims of trafficking are often 
     arrested and convicted for prostitution-related offenses. 
     These victims are often desperate to be released and possibly 
     to be reunited with their children following their arrests or 
     pending trial. These factors--combined with poor legal 
     counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of 
     criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will 
     likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused 
     victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of 
     domestic violence charges and/or prostitution. H.R. 3003 
     imposes harsh criminal penalties and H.R. 3004 imposes 
     expanded bases for detention without consideration of 
     mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these 
     victims.
       In addition, H.R. 3004 expands the criminal consequences 
     for re-entry in the U.S. without recognizing the compelling 
     humanitarian circumstances in which victims who have been 
     previously removed return for their safety. Victims of 
     domestic and sexual violence and trafficking fleeing violence 
     in their countries of origin will be penalized for seeking 
     protection from harm. In recent years, women and children 
     fleeing rampant violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and 
     Honduras, have fled to the United States, seeking refuge. 
     Frequently, because of inadequate access to legal 
     representation, they are unable to establish their 
     eligibility for legal protections in the United States, 
     resulting in their removal. In many cases, the risk of 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human trafficking 
     in their countries of origin remain unabated and victims 
     subsequently attempt to reenter the U.S. to protect 
     themselves and their children. Other victims of domestic and 
     sexual violence and trafficking may be deported because their 
     abusers or traffickers isolate them, or prevent them from 
     obtaining lawful immigration status. They are deported, with 
     some victims having to leave their children behind in the 
     custody of their abusers or traffickers. Under H.R. 3004, 
     these victims risk harsh criminal penalties for re-entry for 
     attempting to protect themselves and their children.
       On behalf of the courageous survivors of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, dating violence, stalking and human 
     trafficking that our organizations serve, we urge you to vote 
     against HR 3003 and 3004, and to affirm the intent and spirit 
     of VAWA by supporting strong relationships between law 
     enforcement and immigrant communities, which is critical for 
     public safety in general, and particularly essential for 
     domestic and sexual violence victims and their children.
           Sincerely,
       The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (www.4vawa.org).
                                  ____

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, 
         and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned 
     local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-
     based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 
     3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public 
     safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and 
     its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and 
     incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly 
     needed law enforcement funding for state and local 
     jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment, 
     and unnecessarily expands the government's detention 
     apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal 
     government's ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for 
     immigration-based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian 
     protections for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on 
     the failed experiment of incarceration for immigration 
     violations.
       Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or 
     ordinances that disentangle their state and local law 
     enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law. 
     The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to 
     attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do 
     not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and 
     local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the 
     U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally 
     infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes 
     jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants, 
     including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and 
     any other federal grant related to law enforcement or 
     immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding 
     federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely 
     runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on 
     commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law 
     professors.
       ``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public 
     safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of 
     crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local 
     law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have 
     repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that 
     community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public 
     safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime 
     and more economic development than similarly situated non-
     ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed 
     federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the 
     ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the 
     public safety needs of their communities.
       Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the 
     immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for 
     immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation 
     Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with 
     employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under 
     Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes 
     immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical 
     measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration, 
     wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished 
     thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the 
     United States to reunite with their children and loved ones. 
     We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry 
     would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison 
     population, and cost billions of dollars.
       Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only 
     legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just 
     immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to 
     citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring 
     Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation 
     programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation 
     that erodes public safety, disrespects local

[[Page 10164]]

     democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional 
     concerns represents an abdication of the Congress' 
     responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration 
     policy. In light of the above, we urge you to vote NO on the 
     No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, 
     H.R. 3004.
       Please contact Jose Magana-Salgado, of the Immigrant Legal 
     Resource Center, if you have any questions regarding this 
     letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,


                         National Organizations

       America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans 
     Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense 
     and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice-AAJC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law 
     Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO 
     (APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; 
     ASISTA; Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Black Alliance for Just 
     Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network; 
     Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American 
     Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender & 
     Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for 
     New Community.
       Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church 
     (Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries; 
     Christian Community Development Association; Church World 
     Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center 
     for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the 
     People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for 
     Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights 
     & Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples 
     Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy 
     Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights 
     Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends 
     Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.
       Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic 
     Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit 
     Missionary Sisters--USA-JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource 
     Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith 
     Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma 
     chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice 
     Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal; 
     Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working 
     Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
       League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee 
     Chapter, Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for 
     Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic 
     Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American 
     Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific 
     Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing 
     Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National 
     Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center; 
     National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian 
     American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors; 
     National Korean American Service & Education Consortium 
     (NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
       National Latina/o Psychological Association; National 
     Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; 
     National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National 
     Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for 
     Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American 
     Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National 
     Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and 
     Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES); 
     School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the 
     Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor; 
     Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern 
     Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center; 
     T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates for 
     Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class Think 
     Tank.
       The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The 
     Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing 
     Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church 
     and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; 
     UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey; 
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United 
     Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of 
     Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee & 
     Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong 
     Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families; 
     Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.


                     State and Local Organizations

       (MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE; 
     580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community 
     Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates 
     for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All; 
     Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors 
     (AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United 
     Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--
     Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--LA; Asian 
     Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service; 
     Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource 
     Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.
       Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami 
     Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services; 
     Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Cabrini Immigrant 
     Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier Families; Canal 
     Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition; CASA; 
     Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San Jose; Catholic 
     Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco, San Mateo & 
     Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.; Central 
     American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish Voice 
     for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of 
     Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative 
     (CVIIC); Centro Laboral de Graton.
       Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro 
     Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership 
     Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle; 
     Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador 
     Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland 
     Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA; 
     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of 
     African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a 
     program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado 
     People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro 
     Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca; 
     Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.; Community 
     Legal Services and Counseling Center.
       Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of 
     Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc.; 
     CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for 
     Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the Most 
     Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters-Grand Rapids 
     (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM-Desis Rising Up & 
     Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Ecumenical Ministries of 
     Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan 
     Church; Emerald Isle Immigration Center; Employee Rights 
     Center; Encuentro; End Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry-
     Korean Presbyterian Church of St. Louis.
       Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal 
     Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House; 
     First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian 
     Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for 
     Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc. 
     (FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community 
     Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-
     Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; 
     Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant 
     Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York 
     Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for 
     Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion 
     Hispanoamericano; HACES.
       Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS 
     Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama; 
     Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human 
     Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District; 
     Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel 
     Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice 
     Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; 
     Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and 
     Children; Inland Empire-Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC); 
     Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International 
     Institute of Buffalo; Irish International immigrant Center; 
     IRTF-InterReligious Task Force on Central America and 
     Colombia.
       Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace-Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace-
     Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace-Austin; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace-Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace-Cleveland; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace-DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace-Denver; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace-Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace-Los 
     Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace-Madison; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace-New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace-Philadelphia; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace-Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace-Portland; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace-San Diego; Jewish Voice for Peace-
     South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace-Syracuse, NY; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace-Triangle NC; Jolt.
       Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our 
     Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors 
     West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace-Hudson Valley; 
     Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for 
     College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance 
     Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant

[[Page 10165]]

     Workers Alliance); Korean Resource Center; La Casa de 
     Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos Humanos; La Comunidad, 
     Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette Urban Ministry; Las 
     Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Latin American Legal 
     Defense and Education Fund; Latino Racial Justice Circle; 
     Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal Aid Society of San 
     Mateo County.
       Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc.; Long Island 
     Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition; 
     Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis 
     Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action 
     Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center 
     for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi 
     Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services; 
     Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA); 
     Mujeres Unidas y Actives; Mundo Maya Foundation; National 
     Lawyers Guild-Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for 
     Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico 
     Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.
       New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York 
     Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ 
     Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of 
     Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey 
     chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice 
     for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant 
     Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD; 
     Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice; 
     Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice-IMIrJ; 
     Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront 
     Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO-West Suburban Action 
     Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and 
     Citizenship Coalition.
       Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center; 
     Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc. 
     (POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee; 
     Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of 
     Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; 
     Project Hope-Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound 
     Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Racial Justice 
     Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees 
     Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange 
     County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN); 
     Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA 
     (Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant 
     Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).
       Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/ 
     Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis 
     Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc.; Skagit 
     Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South 
     Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST); 
     South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration 
     Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God 
     Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community 
     House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; 
     Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community 
     Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The 
     International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal 
     Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition; 
     Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.
       Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian 
     Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA 
     Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African 
     Organization; United Families; University Leadership 
     Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and 
     Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT; 
     UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense 
     Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal 
     Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights; 
     Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment; 
     Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC 
     Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX).
       Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in 
     Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; 
     YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater 
     Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA 
     Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE 
     KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University 
     of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena-Foothill Valley; 
     YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern 
     Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA 
     Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 414, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. DEMINGS. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Demings moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3003 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 6, insert after line 5 the following:
       ``(7) Public safety exception.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, 
     shall not be found to be out of compliance with subsection 
     (a) or (b) if the State or political subdivision of the State 
     certifies to the Attorney General that such compliance would 
     endanger public safety.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today not just as a Member of Congress, but 
as a 27-year veteran of law enforcement and as a former police chief. 
As such, I am compelled to warn of the harm this bill, in its current 
form, will cause for our law enforcement agencies.
  As a police chief, it was my responsibility to reduce crime and 
maintain livable neighborhoods; neighborhoods where families can live 
in peace, and enjoy local parks, community centers, restaurants, and 
shopping; neighborhoods where children can walk to school and play in 
their front yard and backyard without fear.
  That is the kind of community that everyone in America deserves--one 
where they feel safe and secure.
  H.R. 3003 impedes on law enforcement's ability to effectively do its 
job. It will create an environment that will erode the trust between 
law enforcement and the communities they serve.
  The local police are the first ones to respond. They are the thin 
blue line that stands between those who are in this country, who are 
trying to live in peace, and those that would do them harm. We want our 
neighbors--immigrants--to call the police to report crimes without fear 
or hesitation. When they do not, Mr. Speaker, our community is at the 
mercy of the criminals.
  This does not make our communities more safe, yet that is what is at 
stake with the bill before us. Supporters of the bill claim that it has 
an exemption for victims and witnesses, but it is not a complete 
exemption.
  Law enforcement officers investigate and interview witnesses. Their 
goal is to solve crimes, regardless of the immigration status of 
victims and witnesses, including victims of sexual assault and domestic 
violence.
  I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee that would have 
exempted victims and witnesses from all of the bill's intrusive 
requirements. The Rules Committee blocked me from offering that 
amendment, but the bill, in its current form, would undermine law 
enforcement's ability to do its job, therefore, making our communities 
less safe.
  Mr. Speaker, don't just take my word for it. The National Fraternal 
Order of Police stands against the bill. They represent over 330,000 
law enforcement officers across the Nation. These officers are not 
responsible for creating laws, and eliminating Federal grant funding 
for political reasons impedes their ability to solve crimes.
  As the FOP writes:

       Withholding assistance to law enforcement agencies, which 
     have no policymaking rule, will hurt public safety efforts.

  No one knows our communities better than the law enforcement 
officials sworn to protect their communities, which is why I have 
offered this motion which would exempt from the mandates and penalties 
in the bill those jurisdictions in which local law enforcement 
officials conclude that the mandates in this bill would endanger public 
safety.

[[Page 10166]]

  Politics should never impede public safety. The President has said 
that, when lawmakers vote on this bill, they should put America's 
safety first.
  I strongly agree, and I urge my colleagues to support this motion and 
put our public safety first.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is quite correct: 
everyone deserves to feel safe.
  Kate Steinle deserved to feel safe when she was walking down the pier 
with her father in San Francisco, when she was killed.
  Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the 
opposite, as those on the other side have argued.
  How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed 
their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law 
enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets, 
when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify 
that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law 
wouldn't apply?''
  It is circular reasoning.
  The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of 
sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United 
States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do 
nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S. 
citizens.
  This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused 
by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order 
to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no 
affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or 
communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement at any level.

                              {time}  1530

  Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government 
entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating 
with ICE.
  So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view 
compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for 
certain grant programs as outlandish. This is not a novel concept. And 
compliance with section 1373 is already a condition of eligibility for 
these grant programs.
  As for detainers, H.R. 3003 creates the probable cause standard that 
so many have argued was lacking for so long. Once enacted, States and 
localities can look to Federal law to receive clarification on what 
probable cause standard is employed before a detainer request is 
placed.
  To further aid jurisdictions, the threat of expensive and time-
consuming frivolous litigation is abated by providing immunity for 
jurisdictions that exercise good faith in honoring a detainer.
  Finally, this bill ensures that dangerous criminal aliens convicted 
of drunk driving or not yet convicted of very serious crimes are 
prevented from freely walking the streets of our communities during 
their removal hearings. This bill is a strong first step in ensuring 
that our immigration laws are enforced.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote 
for the base bill, and to send a message that sanctuary policies will 
not be tolerated so that the rule of law will prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________