[Pages H5244-H5262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3003, NO SANCTUARY FOR CRIMINALS
ACT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 414
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 414,
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring this
rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary
for Criminals Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my
fellow Judiciary Committee members Mr. Johnson of Louisiana and Ms.
Lofgren of California.
H.R. 3003 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part
of a larger bill, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of
State and Local Law Enforcement Act. That legislation was marked up and
ordered reported by the Judiciary Committee on May 24.
As a cosponsor and strong advocate of the Davis-Oliver Act, I
supported the passage of legislation before the full House. Today we
have the opportunity to move an important piece of that bill forward
and to strengthen our policies against jurisdictions that flout
America's laws.
Mr. Speaker, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is just simply common
sense. John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men. As
we approach the Fourth of July week, we recognize that America's
foundation is that of the rule of law. Yet too often we have seen local
jurisdictions ignore Federal immigration law and declare themselves
sanctuary cities, as though their actions have no consequences for
their law-abiding neighbors.
The reality, however, is that the localities that refuse to enforce
Federal immigration law undermine public safety and break the
democratic contract. Mr. Speaker, the sanctuary cities do not act in a
vacuum. They endanger lives and set dangerous precedent.
{time} 1230
To many people, it would seem obvious that local and State law
enforcement should comply with Federal immigration laws and cooperate
with its fair enforcement by communicating openly with Federal
officials. It would also seem clear that jurisdictions that ignore
these laws should forfeit the Federal funds set aside to support
compliance with those same laws.
Despite this, sanctuary cities oppose Federal immigration officials
routinely. These men and women find themselves handicapped by local
officials implementing obstructionist policies.
In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to better protect
our communities by ensuring our laws are followed. H.R. 3003 takes
steps do that.
I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman King, and Congressman Biggs
for their work on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. These Members are
colleagues of mine on the Judiciary Committee, and they recognize the
need to respond to the continuing problem of sanctuary cities with
resolve, with confidence that Federal immigration laws safeguard every
American community and apply equally to every American community.
The underlying bill provided for by this rule also includes
legislation offered by Mr. King--Sarah's and Grant's Law. Sarah's and
Grant's Law is named after two individuals, Sarah Root and Grant
Ronnebeck, who were tragically killed by unlawful immigrants. The
unlawful immigrants were released and remain at large, and the Root and
Ronnebeck families were left to grieve unspeakable losses while the
lawlessness continues.
It is past time for us to take action to combat dangerous sanctuary
policies. We are a nation of laws and we need to act like it.
While there is no uniform definition of sanctuary cities, and no
comprehensive or official list of these jurisdictions, we have,
regrettably, become all too familiar with them. So-called sanctuary
cities are those jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement
through noncompliance with detainers. They construct unreasonable
hurdles to compliance and create barriers to communication between
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local personnel.
We understand that ICE has a job to do and that its officers took
oaths to uphold those duties. Opponents will claim that this bill is
unnecessary because ICE has the jurisdiction it needs. The truth is,
sanctuary policies make the ICE agents' jobs more difficult, more
dangerous, and endanger communities.
While the previous administration frequently flouted immigration laws
and, for far too long, took a rain check on holding sanctuary cities
accountable, even former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh
Johnson agreed that sanctuary cities shouldn't simply be allowed to
decline to cooperate with Federal Government authorities. In fact, he
said in 2015 that it is ``not acceptable to have no policy of
cooperation with immigration enforcement.''
Mr. Speaker, faithfulness to the law isn't like being offered a cup
of coffee. You can't look at the Federal statutes and say: You know, no
thanks, but I appreciate you offering.
H.R. 3003 confirms that this option is not on the table.
While I agree with former Secretary Johnson that we must have a
policy of cooperation, the policies of the former administration too
frequently didn't indicate a commitment to that goal. In fact, State
and local jurisdictions ignored more than 12,000 Federal detainer
requests in 2014.
Now is the time for action.
Thankfully, President Trump issued an executive order directing the
Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to
ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible for Federal grants
and are subject to enforcement actions. The President also charged
these agencies with reporting on jurisdictions that have refused to
comply with detainers to hold criminal aliens.
The first week this report was issued, it showed 206 known instances
in which local personnel declined ICE detainers and released criminal
aliens. These aliens reentered the communities after they had committed
crimes such as assault, aggravated assault or battery, driving under
the influence, or domestic violence abuses.
The reports indicate that we have work to do, but it helps us by
identifying jurisdictions where personnel are
[[Page H5245]]
thwarting Federal law. It throws into relief the glaring problem of
sanctuary cities and provides information that law enforcement and
lawmakers can use as we assess the problem and develop meaningful
solutions.
Mr. Speaker, I was in the Georgia State House when we took action
there to address the issue of sanctuary cities. In 2009, we in Georgia
outlawed sanctuary cities in our State. Last year, the legislature went
further by requiring local governments to certify their cooperation
with immigration officials in order to receive State funds.
Today we have a chance to take a step in a positive direction on the
Federal level.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act prohibits States and localities
from implementing policies that restrict law enforcement agencies from
cooperating with immigration laws and officials. It gives teeth to that
restriction by tying eligibility for certain Department of Justice and
Homeland Security grants to State and local compliance with existing
immigration laws.
The bill requires that there will be probable cause before ICE can
issue a detainer, and focuses on grant programs reasonably related to
the scope of the bill.
Importantly, this bill also calls for aliens to be detained if the
alien is engaged in a crime that caused death or serious injury to
another person. Had this provision been law at the time, it could have
helped prevent what happened in the heartbreaking death of Sarah Root,
where an alien who caused her death was freed on bond and remains at
large.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act also takes the commonsense step of
allowing DHS to withhold aliens rather than transferring them to
sanctuary jurisdictions, even if the jurisdiction has a warrant. It
simply doesn't make sense for DHS to transfer aliens who are removable
under the law to jurisdictions that are looking for opportunities to
let them go.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot talk about holding sanctuary cities accountable
by strengthening our laws without mentioning the work of Chairman John
Culberson.
In 2016, Chairman Culberson successfully convinced the Department of
Justice to update guidelines in order to disqualify sanctuary cities
from receiving DOJ grant money should they be found in violation of
title 8 U.S. Code, section 1373.
Attorney General Sessions has reiterated that Federal law enforcement
grants are contingent on compliance with existing law, and that the DOJ
will deny fiscal year 2017 grant funds to jurisdictions that have
refused to share information regarding illegal aliens in their custody.
Chairman Culberson's efforts made clear that State and local law
enforcement agencies are expected to work with Federal law enforcement
agencies on immigration matters. Through his diligent work, meaningful
steps have been taken to restore accountability.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act builds on these efforts and
ensures that jurisdictions comply with the detainers while
strengthening our law to ensure that aliens who have been committing
crimes such as drunk driving are detained pending their removal.
H.R. 3003 permits the Secretary of DHS to issue a detainer for any
individual arrested for violation of a criminal or motor vehicle law
upon probable cause that an individual is an inadmissible or deportable
alien.
In this critically important step, the bill grants immunity to State
and local entities for compliance with any detainer.
Jurisdictions that want to act in good faith and follow the law
should be able to cooperate without being held liable for their
compliance. The protections provided in this bill are a major step
forward to effective enforcement.
Finally, this bill gives victims and their families a private right
of action against a State and local government whose noncompliance and
release of an alien results in a murder, rape, or serious injury of the
victim. This measure, were it law, would have allowed Kate Steinle's
family to sue after her tragic murder at the hands of a criminal and
unlawful immigrant.
Sanctuary cities and jurisdictions ignore the law. They do it at the
expense of the American people. Our citizens surely deserve better.
They deserve to live in communities that don't let dangerous criminals
back out into the streets. They deserve to see the law upheld rather
than ignored. Law-abiding citizens deserve to see individuals who break
our laws--not only by entering and residing in our country illegally,
but by committing crimes once here--to be removed.
This rule provides for the consideration of legislation to strengthen
the rule of law and to protect our neighbors and communities.
It demands that jurisdictions comply with our Nation's immigration
laws and enforcement or face penalties.
Today we can take action to turn off the spigot of Federal funds to
those jurisdictions that obstruct ICE efforts at the expense of
Americans. We demonstrate that Members of this House will not sit idly
by while sanctuary cities continue flouting the laws of our land with
impunity. We strengthen our detainer policy, enable ICE to do its job,
and, at the same time, help protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
closed rule, and in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R.
3003.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider its 37th closed rule for
the year, and tomorrow it will take up number 38. My Republican friends
are breaking all kinds of records here.
While I often wonder just why the Republican leadership is so afraid
of open debate in the United States House of Representatives, I do
recognize that it goes right along with the Republican majority's
complete rejection of regular order.
The House of Representatives, I am sad to say, has ceased being a
deliberative body where important issues are debated freely. The
Republican leadership has shut this place down, and this is yet another
example of it.
Look up the history of the bill the House will debate later today or
tomorrow, H.R. 3003, the so-called No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. It
was introduced on June 22. That was last Thursday. Like its 2015
predecessor, it has had no hearings, no markup, no input from local law
enforcement, no regular order.
No one had a chance to testify about this bill. Not the U.S.
Conference of Mayors that includes the mayors of over 1,000 cities and
towns, Democrat and Republican alike, who represent over 150 million
people.
Not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities,
Church World Service, and religious and faith leaders from all across
the land.
Not the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement
Immigration Task Force, or the National Task Force to End Sexual and
Domestic Violence.
Not the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the YWCA, or hundreds
of national civil rights, human rights, labor, immigration, and
humanitarian organizations.
Mr. Speaker, on a bill that would affect hundreds of cities and towns
and counties across America, why wouldn't we want to hear the views of
these important law enforcement, State and local government, religious,
civil society, and victims' organizations?
The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. Because they all oppose this
legislation. All of them.
It is much easier for Republicans to close down the process and
steamroll this terrible bill through Congress than to actually get
feedback from the American people and the leaders charged with keeping
them safe.
If you are going to pass a bill that has so much public opposition, I
guess it makes sense to do it quickly and with as little debate as
possible.
Welcome to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, where the
voices of the American people are shut out as Republicans continue to
ram through their radical agenda.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 does nothing to advance cooperation between
local law enforcement with the Federal Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
[[Page H5246]]
Cooperation between local and Federal agencies to apprehend, try, and
punish serious criminal offenders, and in the case of foreign
nationals, to imprison and then deport them, has always been a high
priority. These are matters of national security.
But instead of continuing to foster cooperation and strengthen this
priority, this bill chooses to blackmail, coerce, and penalize local
law enforcement agencies and demand that they potentially violate the
Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment,
the 10th Amendment, and the 14th amendment.
I wish my Republican friends were as faithful to the rights enshrined
in these amendments of the Bill of Rights as they are to the Second
Amendment, but then that is a whole other debate.
And let's think about this for a minute. What are they proposing to
do?
For communities and local law enforcement that believe that doing
what this bill asks them to do would make it more difficult for them to
do local policing, and would make it more difficult for them to have
the trust of members in their community to report crimes. What my
Republican friends propose to do is take away important Federal funding
to help keep these communities safe.
What are we talking about here?
I think it is important for people to understand this. Programs like
the COPS programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services; the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant
program; and national security programs, those things would be taken
away from local communities. It doesn't make any sense.
For example, the Bynre JAG is a major source of criminal justice
funding for local law enforcement and provided $275 million in fiscal
year 2016 for prevention and education programs, drug treatment and
enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and other community-
based programs.
Other funding programs and grants that are threatened under this bill
are used to address sexual assault, gang violence, and trafficking such
as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, the Violent Gang and Gun Crime
Reduction Program, and the Reach and Evaluation on Trafficking in
Persons program.
Maybe nobody read what this bill does before they brought it to the
floor. I just don't understand the logic of basically trying to
blackmail communities by taking away important funding that is designed
to protect the citizens of various communities across this country.
Mr. Speaker, this so-called sanctuary cities bill, as I mentioned,
threatens to strip local jurisdictions of Federal grants and funding.
It specifically targets law enforcement, counterterrorism, and national
security grants when they prioritize working with immigrant communities
to keep our neighbors and cities and towns safe.
{time} 1245
I don't think Washington knows best all the time, unlike my
Republican colleagues. I trust my local police departments on this
issue more than I trust my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Republicans would rather demonize these cities, towns, and local police
agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on
immigration enforcement instead of local policing, making our cities
and our communities less safe, not more safe.
This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It
deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their
communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system,
and strengthen public safety.
Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve
any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the
radical views of the anti-immigrant rightwing of the Republican Party.
It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It is meant to
turn our local police into the lackeys of ICE.
Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait and wait for the
Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 4 years
since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill,
and we are still waiting for House Republicans to step up and act, to
actually try to solve a problem rather than continue to divide our
country and continue to act in a way that is polarizing.
What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends,
colleagues, small-business owners, and hardworking residents out of the
shadows. That is what makes America stronger. That is why 9 out of 10
Americans support immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship
for the undocumented, according to a March 2017 poll by CNN/ORC.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article about the poll.
[From cnn.com, Mar. 17, 2017]
CNN/ORC Poll: Americans Break With Trump on Immigration Policy
(By Tal Kopan and Jennifer Agiesta)
Washington (CNN).--Americans disagree with President Donald
Trump's immigration priorities, according to a new CNN/ORC
poll, with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like
to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants
rather than deportations.
Trump has made tough border security and strict enforcement
of US immigration laws a focal point of his campaign and
presidency--using some of his first executive orders to pave
the way for far more deportations and detentions as well as
ordering the construction of a Southern border wall.
But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that the public is
actually moving in the opposite direction since Trump has won
election.
Americans are more likely to say that the nation's top
immigration priority should be to allow those in the US
illegally to gain legal status--and six in 10 say they are
more concerned that deportation efforts will be overzealous
than they are that dangerous criminals will be overlooked.
All told, 60% say the government's top priority in dealing
with illegal immigration should be developing a plan to allow
those in the US illegally who have jobs to become legal
residents.
In contrast, 26% say developing a plan to stop illegal
border crossings should be the top priority and 13% say
deportation of those in the US illegally should be the first
priority.
The number who prioritize legal status for those working in
the US illegally is up from 51% who said so last fall. That
shift comes across party lines, with Democrats and
independents each 10 points more likely and Republicans 8
points more likely to choose a plan for legal status now
compared with last fall.
While Trump campaigned heavily against ``amnesty'' for
undocumented immigrants, he has avoided rescinding an Obama
administration program offering protections and work permits
to those who were brought to the US as children, and in a
recent meeting with reporters a senior administration
official indicated Trump could be open to a compromise that
included a path to legalization, if not citizenship, if it
came to his desk.
Trump told Congress in his joint address last month that he
supported the idea of an immigration reform compromise, but
offered few details.
Offering citizenship to those immigrants who are living in
the US illegally but hold a job, speak English and are
willing to pay back taxes is immensely popular, with 90%
behind such a plan. That's consistent across party lines,
with 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 87% of
Republicans behind it.
The President has described his immigration policies as
focused on removing criminals, though critics of his
administration say enforcement agencies' definition of
criminal is too expansive and sweeps up people who only broke
immigration laws.
He has also ordered the creation of offices and reports
focused on publicizing victims of crimes committed by
undocumented immigrants.
Americans say, however, they are more concerned about the
effects of deportations than they are about immigrant crimes.
Overall, 58% say they're more concerned that deportation
efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people
who haven't committed serious crimes, while 40% say they're
more concerned that those efforts will not go far enough and
dangerous criminals will remain in the US. That number is
largely driven by Democrats--more than two-thirds of
Republicans say they are concerned efforts won't go far
enough.
As for deportation priorities, seven in 10 say the
government should not attempt to deport all immigrants living
in the country illegally, up from 66% in the fall.
A wide majority, nearly eight in 10, support deporting
undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes,
however, an area Trump says is his focus. There has been a
small uptick, nevertheless, in the share who say the
government shouldn't be deporting those living in the US
illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, from 15%
to 19%.
Opinions vary by party on both of these questions, though
majorities across party lines are on the same side of both
arguments. Among Republicans, 55% oppose attempts to deport
all people living in the US illegally, below the 86% of
Democrats and 71% of independents who feel that way.
Considering deportation of those in the country illegally
[[Page H5247]]
who have been convicted of other crimes, 64% of Democrats
favor that, below the 79% of independents and 93% of
Republicans who say the same.
CNN/ORC interviewed 1,025 American adults by phone from
March 1 to 4 for the poll, which has a margin of error of
plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results by party have a
margin of error of plus or minus 6 points.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, instead of working together to find
commonsense solutions to immigration, the Republican leadership offers
extreme, deportation-only bills that undermine public safety and hurt
our communities. Let them register; let them pay a fine; let them be
documented and not fear talking with the police; and let us recognize
their many contributions to communities across America.
These are our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Our kids go
to school together. We shop at the same grocery stores and eat at the
same restaurants. We serve together on the PTA and worship together at
church. Our country is strongest when we lift up our neighbors. This
bill will only drive us apart.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same old divisive
Republican anti-immigrant formula. It will sow fear among the immigrant
community, regardless of their status; it will tear families apart; it
will subvert public trust of local law enforcement and police; and it
will undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, America is better than this. I urge my colleagues to
reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts a great
deal. I am not sure what is subversive to the Constitution in upholding
the law.
When we deal with this issue, it is about a choice. We can talk about
local law enforcement and we can talk about cities that do not want to
do this, but they are making the choice here. It is time we hold people
accountable for choices.
I think it is really interesting that we mentioned the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program, which, by the way, was meant to reimburse
localities for holding illegal immigrants. If they are not holding
them, then why do they need the money to start with?
So let's at least put it in perspective here. I can talk about
immigration reform. I believe there is a lot that we can do in that. I
agree with the gentleman. However, I disagree in the part here, why
don't we enforce the law that is here?
By the way, that is currently the law under both President Obama and
President Trump. Under U.S. Code section 1373, in order to get Federal
money, they have to comply with this section. This simply builds upon
what we have already done.
So I think it is a choice here. I think making it out to be anything
other than a choice that the localities have made is really trying to
subvert the process and discuss another issue. We can do that all we
want. That is what ended up, a lot of times, happening in this rule
debate.
But at the end of the day, this is about simply enforcing the law. I
think if you go to places all over the country and you begin to ask
them just a simple question and start it off with this, ``Don't you
think we ought to enforce the law?'' the answer you get over 90 percent
of the time is yes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is clear that the laws aren't working. That is why we need
comprehensive immigration reform, and that is why it is so unfortunate
that the Republicans in this House have stalled on that issue. We had
bipartisan support a few years ago for comprehensive immigration
reform, but people here, for some reason, would rather just demagogue
the issue than do something about it.
As I said before, I actually trust my local officials, my local
police, more than I do my Republican friends who are speaking here
today and who spoke in the Rules Committee last night.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all of us from the
National Fraternal Order of Police, which is strongly opposed to this
bill; a letter to all of us from The United States Conference of
Mayors, which is strongly opposed to all of this; a letter to all of us
from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is strongly
opposed to this bill; and a letter to all of us from Cities for Action,
which is strongly opposed to this bill.
National
Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, June 27, 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 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.
____
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;
[[Page H5248]]
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 UN 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.
HR 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.
____
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 to carry out the federal
government's immigration enforcement responsibilities, the
federal government would be substituting its judgment for the
judgment of 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 immigration 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 Sylvia 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,
Boise, 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, Providence, 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.
____
Cities for Action,
June 28, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a
coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that
advocates for policies and programs that promote inclusion of
foreign-born residents. Our coalition has a deep commitment
to promoting public safety and building trust between law
enforcement and immigrant communities. We are writing to you
today to urge that you oppose the No Sanctuary for Criminals
Act, H.R. 3003.
Cities and counties are united in our opposition to
Representative Goodlatte's bill, which would undermine local
public safety efforts. Nearly 600 jurisdictions have a
variety of policies that would put them at risk of losing
millions of dollars in federal funding for local law
enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime
victim initiatives. These policies were adopted due to
constitutional concerns and judgements made on the best use
of limited resources. Rather than empowering localities to
adopt measures designed to enhance the general welfare of
their residents, H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the
ability to enact common-sense crime prevention policies that
ensure victims of crime will seek protection and report
crimes.
Among the types of grants that would be at risk are: the
Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, which addresses the growing
number of unsubmitted sexual assault kits in law enforcement
custody and aims to provide help for victims; the Violent
Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program, which is designed to
create safer neighborhoods through a sustained reduction in
gang violence and gun crime; and the Research and Evaluation
on Trafficking of Persons, which helps support cities'
efforts to respond to the challenges that human trafficking
pose in their jurisdiction.
This bill also raises serious concerns by undermining local
laws and criminal prosecutions. It would prevent states or
localities from establishing laws or policies that
[[Page H5249]]
prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This
intrudes into local policies that help foster a relationship
of trust between law enforcement officials and immigrants
that will, in turn, promote public safety for all our
residents.
This also raises serious constitutional concerns. The Tenth
Amendment to the U. S. Constitution limits the federal
government's ability to mandate particular action by states
and localities, including in the area of federal immigration
law enforcement and investigations. The federal government
cannot force states or localities to enact or administer a
federal regulatory program, or compel state or local
employees to participate in the administration of a federally
enacted regulatory scheme.
In addition, this bill permits DHS to ignore validly issued
state or local criminal warrants, which would prevent
jurisdictions from completing their prosecution of criminals.
The provisions of this bill undercut local law enforcement
and will jeopardize public safety efforts.
Local governments have a strong interest in protecting all
residents and maintaining public safety. Therefore, we urge
you to oppose the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003,
and ensure it never becomes law.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
Cities for Action.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know my friends think Washington knows
best, but I trust my local police more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is no debating that our immigration
system is in need of reform. The system doesn't meet the needs of our
Nation, its businesses, or its families. There are sensible steps we
can take to ensure that it works better and that the rules are
followed.
But rather than work in a bipartisan and top-to-bottom fashion to fix
our broken laws, today we consider a one-sided and enforcement-only
approach that is rejected by the majority of Americans.
This bill would drastically expand and, indeed, compel local
involvement with Federal immigration enforcement. Even though the
majority often professes its fondness for states' rights and local
governance, the bill actually prohibits States and cities from policing
themselves as they think best, including by having community trust
policies that disentangle local policing from Federal immigration
enforcement. These are policies that have proven to engender trust in
law enforcement and drive down crime.
The bill prohibits jurisdictions from declining immigration detainer
requests, even when compliance would violate binding court orders. In
fact, a lot of Federal district courts have found that, when it is time
to release an inmate because their sentence has been served, it
violates the Fourth Amendment to hold that individual upon a mere
request by the Federal Government. If you want that person, the answer
is simple: Get a warrant. It is the Fourth Amendment.
Indeed, the bill also likely violates the 10th Amendment by
commandeering States to engage in Federal enforcement.
The bill, as has been mentioned, cuts off critical law enforcement
funding, and that is why the Fraternal Order of Police has written its
letter in opposition to the bill.
Taken together, the provisions of this bill undermine law
enforcement's ability to keep communities safe, hurt victims and
witnesses of crimes, and likely violate the U.S. Constitution.
It is no surprise this bill is a priority for the Trump
administration. Anti-immigrant sentiment may have become the hallmark
of the Trump administration, but it does not represent the values of
our Nation, and, indeed, the majority of Americans strongly oppose
President Trump's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose
the bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, just going on this, immigration is an interesting
issue, and we can discuss this. There probably are not a lot of folks
that I respect more than the gentlewoman from California, but this is a
constitutional issue. Immigration is a national issue.
If we are willing to reverse this out and let the States and
localities determine immigration, I think we settled that way over 200
years ago. This is where this belongs.
So, as we look at this, Washington is not saying it knows best. But
on this issue, it is our domain; it is where we are supposed to be.
This is our role.
We believe, simply, that enforcing the law is what we need here. If
the gentleman believes that States ought to have more control in a lot
of things that we do, then I think maybe I am getting him closer to
agreeing with us on healthcare that we need to reform and replace
ObamaCare and let States have a little bit more information in that.
But one of the things is that there is no affirmative action on the
cities here. I think there is sort of a point to make here. There is no
affirmative action on cities or localities to comply with this issue.
They are simply, again, as I said earlier, making a choice.
If they choose not to work through it the current way, then they are
giving up Federal funding. That is their choice. If they choose to do
it, they are giving up Federal funding. They are not being forced and
coerced. They are simply saying: You actually look at it; you make the
choice in how you want to do it; then explain it to your population. If
they are agreeing with that, that is your choice.
One of the things that often is said here is we trot out letters from
associations. And I agree. I respect the National Fraternal Order of
Police and mayors. They have a great thing. But they also represent
members who are, right now, actually, not in compliance with this, who
dislike this law. So, naturally, you would say part of their membership
is going to be supportive of them.
But, also, growing up in the household of a Georgia State trooper, I
also know a few things about law enforcement as well. Law enforcement
wants to protect the communities they serve, and they want to enforce
the law.
What is happening right now is that local law enforcement is deciding
how they are going to do this. They are not cooperating with ICE to
find a better way to work in their communities. They are simply saying:
We made a political choice to do something.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think with the Constitution, this body has the
political choice to say: That is your choice; just do it without
Federal funds.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman, my friend, says that this is a constitutional
question. We agree that the Constitution is an important document, and
it goes to the heart of why we are opposed to the bill that the
gentleman is supporting here. The reason why we say that is because we
have had Federal courts that have decided in ways in the past that
cause great concern that much in this bill may be unconstitutional.
Now, that is why we should have had hearings, that radical idea that
we keep on bringing up, like hearings where people come and testify.
But I guess that is too much to ask.
One of the reasons why we are opposed to this is because we are
concerned that it may undermine the Constitution, and that is a pretty
big deal. I am happy to give the gentleman my copy of the Constitution
and references to court cases if he would like to do a little research,
but, boy, it would have been nice to have a hearing.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of 407 local,
State, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-based, and labor
organizations in strong opposition to H.R. 3003.
June 28, 2017.
Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003,
and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
U.S. 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
[[Page H5250]]
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 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.
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 ArcJewish 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.
[[Page H5251]]
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 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 Activas; 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)n; 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue with the
canvas in the back of the entire immigration laws that need to be
addressed.
This body--not the body at the other end of the building, this body--
didn't have the guts to address it 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years
ago, nor this year. This is something that we need to address, even
though it is not the bill itself.
I am a strong supporter of law enforcement. As co-chair of the Law
Enforcement Caucus, I rise in total opposition to this bill and the
rule. Here is what the misguided goal of this bill would do:
You are going to prove a point by penalizing law enforcement for
immigration policies politicians in their city have to implement. That
is what you want to do. So it absolves us down here in Washington.
This bill threatens the central Federal funding streams for law
enforcement. You have heard all of those programs that are being
endangered. Any 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 you are putting on the chopping block if this bill
becomes law.
This bill would not make our communities safer. In fact, it
undermines public safety.
The funding this bill puts at risk allows local police departments to
purchase equipment and hire and provide training for officers. This
actually jeopardizes the security--read my lips--of communities in
order to perpetuate a false narrative about immigrants.
{time} 1300
I just received a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's
Benevolent Association. I think it says it better than anything I could
say. It says: ``Politics should not interfere with the safety of our
members or our ability to do our job.''
The police are telling us that, and you are asking them to go out and
do the job of protecting our citizens day in and day out--which we all
are, I hope--and then you are telling them: But I am sorry, because we
have a disagreement on this issue, you are going to suffer the
consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the New Jersey
State Policemen's Benevolent Association.
New Jersey State Policemen's
Benevolent Association, Inc.,
Woodbridge, NJ, June 28, 2017.
Re H.R. 3003.
Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.,
Paterson, NJ.
Dear Congressman Pascrell: The New Jersey State Policemen's
Benevolent Association (NJSPBA) represents over 33,000 law
enforcement officers throughout our state. It is no secret
that law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day
to keep our
[[Page H5252]]
communities safe. And as a strong supporter of law
enforcement on the floor of the U.S. House of
Representatives, we would like to thank you for all your
efforts on behalf of the men and women that serve within the
law enforcement community.
It is our understanding that this week the House is voting
on H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which
adds additional obstacles to funding for the hiring of
additional police officers in certain communities throughout
our state. Specifically, the bill restricts municipalities
from receiving grants administered by the Department of
Justice or the Department of Homeland Security if municipal
officials fail to notify the federal government with regard
to the presence of individuals as it relates to information
regarding citizenship or immigration status.
While we strongly agree that state and local law
enforcement should work closely with federal law enforcement,
cutting off funding for law enforcement to already
underfunded and understaffed police departments and law
enforcement entities undermines our collective efforts to
keep our members and the communities they serve safe.
Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members
or our ability to do our job.
On behalf of our membership, we appreciate your ongoing
efforts and hope you will continue to work with your
colleagues in Congress to assure funding for law enforcement
and prevent our government from punishing our membership for
something that is completely out of our control.
I am available to discuss our opposition to H.R. 3003
further, at your convenience. You can reach me at our NJSPBA
offices, if you have any questions.
Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and
women of law enforcement.
Sincerely,
Patrick Colligan,
State President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans are doing that
right here. They are playing politics with our Nation's security.
To quote the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association
again--these words are from the police, not me--`` . . . punishing our
membership for something that is completely out of our control.''
Why are the police opposed to this legislation?
The Fraternal Order of Police you have heard about. Some of my
friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk the talk when it
comes to supporting law enforcement until it either costs money or we
are going to have to deal with the bigger factors. That is a fact.
You may laugh all you want, but that is a fact. I can cite you
chapter and verse if you want. This is no laughing matter. This is
business. This is the lives of the police.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the Chair, but I also will
not stand here and let it be said from some political angle that the
son of a Georgia State trooper has anything less than respect for law
enforcement or wants anything more than to have law enforcement
agencies do their job. And this is exactly what we are talking about.
Do your job.
If you want to make a political statement, then work it out
politically. But this is: Do your job, keep the law.
I mean, what else--are we going to get another letter from another
police association saying: Well, we decided we are not going to enforce
Federal whatever else?
This is an issue that needs to be discussed, and I will just simply
say, from this perspective, of one who has lived it for 50 years and
who lived it under the same house for 21 years, no, there is no one
that respects law enforcement and their role more than this Member. And
this Member is simply reflecting a lot of views of law enforcement.
This says: Let us do our job. We will work on these issues, but you
are making a choice. If you don't want to enforce it, then don't take
the money. Do what you want to do. Just don't take the money.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in order to respond.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pathetic way to
look at our police officers in this country. ``If you don't like it,
don't take the money.''
You must be kidding me. I urge my colleagues to find a different
tactic to penalize political decisions that you don't like.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, again, reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair, not to individuals on the floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question. And if we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to this rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Raise
the Wage Act, H.R. 15, which would finally give workers the raise they
deserve, and increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7
years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. We have not raised
the minimum wage in 10 years, and people who work hard every single day
have seen their pay erode again and again.
Mr. Speaker, people who are working full time at $7.25 an hour can't
make it. And if we can defeat this previous question, we can actually
bring up something that the American people really need, which is to
get a raise.
Mr. Speaker, this is not something we are going to dump on top of
business all at once. There is a ladder up. It takes 7 years to get to
that $15, but, Mr. Speaker, make no doubt that we need to do it.
Mr. Speaker, right now, today, people working full time qualify for
food stamps, housing assistance, and medical assistance because their
employers don't pay them enough to make it. And I know that everybody
in this House knows that, when people work hard, they ought to be able
to make it in America.
If you work full time, you shouldn't be in poverty. You should be
able to afford a good apartment. You should be able to have good
scheduling for your job. You should have some benefits. This is all the
American Dream is about, being able to work hard and get paid fairly
for it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you know that between 2009 and
2013, we saw the top 1 percent of income earners get 85 percent of the
income growth in this country. That means we have historic inequality
not seen since the Great Depression. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. And if
we can defeat this previous question, we should do everything we can to
pass this excellent piece of legislation that Ranking Member Bobby
Scott has authored in this body.
Mr. Scott and I, as well as many other Members, have been all over
this country, and right here in D.C. standing with workers explaining
to us their struggles, how they haven't seen a raise, how they haven't
seen their pay go up. And they are serious, Mr. Speaker, about wanting
to be part of this economy, too.
Pass this minimum wage increase. Give America a raise.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are trying to bring this
to the floor by way of defeating the previous question is because the
Republican majority in this House had basically locked everything down
so we can't get important bills to the floor.
We can't even get amendments to the underlying bill that we are
debating here today. It is really unfortunate and sad for this
institution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill wrongfully endorses political
interference with professional law enforcement leaders. With no legal
authority, both President Trump and his Texan look-alike, Governor Greg
Abbott, want to deny funds and intimidate
[[Page H5253]]
local governments, who rightfully refuse to place politics above public
safety.
I will tell my Republican colleague from Georgia, and his colleagues,
that the only lawlessness that exists here is the lawlessness of
President Trump in trying to do this to such an extent that a Federal
court order stopped him. And they will also, I believe, stop Governor
Abbott on his outrageous Senate Bill 4.
Our police chiefs in San Antonio and in Austin, our courageous
Sheriff, Sally Hernandez, like many law enforcement professionals from
Texas to New Jersey, they say that maintaining the trust and confidence
of the immigrant community to report crime, to be witnesses concerning
crime, that this makes us all safer--immigrant and nonimmigrant alike.
Any proper arrest warrant presented by ICE will be honored
everywhere. Detainers, which are merely a bureaucratic message saying
the bureaucracy is suspicious of someone who should be imprisoned based
on that suspicion, will not be kept imprisoned--and Federal courts have
said they should not be--under the Constitution.
I would say that the only sanctuary that this bill provides is a
sanctuary for prejudice. It is a sanctuary that defies the reality of
the America we have today, particularly in the Southwest.
We should reject this bill and affirm welcoming cities, like mine,
that are a refuge from anti-immigrant hysteria, but have a strong
commitment to safety and to effective law enforcement, and looking to
our local law enforcement, not political interference from Washington
telling us how to protect our families.
This very week, four years ago, an overwhelming bipartisan United
States Senate majority approved comprehensive immigration reform. And
like the amendments that are being blocked today, these House
Republicans were so fearful that that bill might become law that they
will not even permit us to even debate it four years later on the floor
of this House.
Instead of this anti-immigrant hysteria, instead of this sorry piece
of legislation, what we need is broad immigration reform, and we need
it now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), our former chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Rules Committee, for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill, H.R. 3003, No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act; and I thank the chairman, Bob Goodlatte,
and Representatives Steve King and Andy Biggs for introducing it.
This legislation keeps dangerous criminal immigrants off our streets
and out of our neighborhoods, and it holds sanctuary cities accountable
for breaking Federal immigration laws. I have a special interest in
this legislation because it enforces a bill I sponsored in 1969, which
was enacted into law and made sanctuary cities illegal.
The American people sent a clear message to Congress last November
when they elected a President who promised to enforce our immigration
laws. A recent poll shows that 80 percent--80 percent--of voters want
cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes to be required to turn
them over to immigration authorities. Eighty percent. That is a
Harvard-Harris poll.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is a down payment on our pledge to
protect innocent Americans from criminal immigrants who deserve to be
jailed or sent back to their home countries. We need to enact this
legislation. There is simply no excuse for local governments to ignore
immigration laws at the expense of American's safety and well-being.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the entire Congress
from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in opposition to this
bill; a letter from Amnesty International in opposition to this bill;
and a letter from Church World Services in opposition to this bill.
Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the
``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R.
3004), June 27, 2017.
As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration
lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''
(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends
that members of Congress reject these bills which are
scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27
and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary
Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance
public safety,'' they will do the just the opposite:
undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law
enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In
addition, the bills which were made public less than a week
before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary
Committee, include provisions that will result in violations
of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the
Constitution.
At a time when over 9 out 10 Americans support immigration
reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican
leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only
bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and
prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families
who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of
criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be
offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy
and our country.
The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003
H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with
local policing: H.R. 3003 would amend 8 Sec. U.S.C. 1373 to
prevent states or localities from establishing laws or
policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance
with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The
bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more
narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from
restricting the sharing and exchange of information with
federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's
citizenship or immigration status.
Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad
wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to
enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure
victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The
bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS
from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed
``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local
law enforcement has a final order of removal.
Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with
federal immigration efforts are penalized 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.
In an effort to force localities to engage in civil
immigration enforcement efforts, including those against
nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it
far more difficult for many localities, including large
cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous
criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of
immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated
sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from
the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.
H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in
the Fourth Amendment: By prohibiting localities from
restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal
immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels
localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial
and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless
widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of
detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities
may be held liable for honoring them.
The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing
that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold
undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is
currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.
Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue
detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral
magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in
the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral
magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive
provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose
between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or
being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''
Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and
private contractors with immunity if they are sued for
violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer
the financial burden of litigation by substituting the
federal government for the local officers as the defendant.
If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck
paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly
detained.
The bill goes even further by creating a private right of
action allowing 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.
H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment: H.R. 3003
would compel states and localities to utilize their local law
enforcement resources to implement federal civil
[[Page H5254]]
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 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.
H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process: H.R.
3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring
those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the
bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who
have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention
without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS
has the authority to detain individuals ``without time
limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings.
These provisions would dramatically expand the federal
government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and
would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented
immigrants held in substandard detention facilities.
Kate's Law, H.R. 3004
H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in
federal law for illegal reentry (NA 276; 8 U.S.C. 1326). The
number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown
steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such
cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal
prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing
enhancements for people who are convicted of minor
misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but
have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve
public safety and will undermine due process and protections
for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer
funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of
people who pose no threat to the community and who have
strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their
loved ones.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon
people with minor offenses: H.R. 3004 would add sentencing
enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including
driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses.
Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is
charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their
punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have
been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors
involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has
been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of
severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years.
This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of
people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are
trying to reunite with family members and have other strong
ties to the United States. Currently half of all people
convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the
country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also
waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock
up non-violent people.
H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at
the border: H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA 276 to
punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to
reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to
cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the
border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border,
regardless of whether the alien is free from official
restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at
ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody
by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal
charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking
refuge in the U.S.
H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for
people with multiple entries: The bill would also create new
sentencing enhancements for people who have reentered the
U.S. multiple times, even if they have no other criminal
convictions. If someone has been removed three or more times,
and is found in the United States or attempts to cross the
border again, H.R. 3004 law would provide for sentencing
enhancements of up to ten years. The bill makes no exception
for bona fide asylum seekers, which means that people who are
seeking refuge in the U.S. from atrocities abroad could be
subject to a lengthy prison sentence under these provisions.
H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking
challenges to unfair removal orders: The bill will prevent an
individual from challenging the validity of a removal order,
even it was fundamentally unfair in the first place. The
Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez,481 U.S. 828
(1987) that due process requires that a challenge be allowed
if a deportation proceeding is used as an element of a
criminal offense and where the proceeding ``effectively
eliminate[d] the right of the alien to obtain judicial
review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is likely
unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to
defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without
the opportunity to seek asylum.
____
Amnesty International,
June 28, 2017.
Amnesty International USA urges a vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3003 and H.R.
3004
Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA
(``AIUSA'') and our more than one million members and
supporters nationwide, we strongly urge you to oppose the No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R.
3004). Both bills are scheduled for House floor votes as
early as June 28. If passed, both bills would pave the way
for and accelerate the implementation of policies that
increase the criminalization and detention of immigrants and
asylum seekers, thereby violating the United States'
obligations under international law.
AIUSA will be scoring these votes.
I. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) would
prevent municipalities from determining how law enforcement
agencies are engaging in immigration enforcement, and would
dramatically expand indefinite detention and mandatory
detention of immigrants in jail-like facilities with subpar
dangerous conditions, in violation of international human
rights standards.
H.R. 3003 would prevent localities from enacting community
trust policies that instruct local police not to carry out
federal immigration enforcement, thereby undermining policing
practices designed to build trust and confidence between
local law enforcement and the communities they serve. This
bill would open the door to racial profiling against Latinos
and other communities of color, including U.S. citizens.
International law firmly prohibits discrimination, and the
United States' commitment to those obligations applies to
citizens and non-citizens alike.
States that have passed anti-immigrant legislation that
requires local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration
agencies or to inquire about immigration status regarding any
interactions with law enforcement have compromised the right
to justice for immigrant communities by discouraging
immigrant survivors from reporting crimes.
The U.S. government has an obligation to prevent and
address abuse of immigrants and ensure that all immigrants
are able to access available remedies. This includes acting
with due diligence to investigate and punish criminal conduct
committed by private individuals, and guaranteeing access to
justice for immigrant victims of crime.
Amnesty International has also documented how the increased
involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies in
immigration enforcement, without adequate oversight and
accountability to prevent abuses, contributes to the rise in
reports of racial profiling for Latino communities and other
communities of color. Numerous studies have demonstrated that
programs that integrate the criminal justice system and law
enforcement as an entry point for immigration enforcement
have led to racial profiling and other abuses.
In addition, H.R. 3003 would dramatically expand the
Department of Homeland Security (``DES'') immigration
detention powers by authorizing mandatory detention ``without
time limitation.'' This would empower the DHS to detain
untold numbers of immigrants for as long as it takes to
conclude immigration court removal proceedings, even if that
takes years. Section 4 would also authorize indefinite
mandatory detention Without providing the basic due process
of an immigration judge bond hearing to determine if the
immigrant's imprisonment was justified in the first place.
Finally, section 4 would expand mandatory detention of
immigrants with no criminal record whatsoever, including
immigrants who overstayed a visa or lack legal papers.
The mandatory detention system, which provides for the
automatic detention of individuals, amounts to arbitrary
detention, and is in violation of international law, which
requires that detention be justified in each individual case
and be subject to judicial review. The expansion of offenses
which would fall under mandatory detention as demonstrated in
H.R., as proposed by H.R. 3003, amounts to arbitrary
detention, and is in violation of international law, which
requires that detention be justified in each individual case
and be subject to judicial review. U.S. federal courts have
also consistently held that detaining immigrants for months
and years without bond hearings raises serious problems under
the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
The proposed dramatic expansion of immigration detention
powers envisioned in H.R. 3003 comes at a time when
immigration detention has already hit record-highs, with the
average daily population (``ADP'') exceeding 40,000 in
comparison to a 34,000 ADP for the preceding seven years.
This sharp escalation in the number of detained immigrants
also comes at a time when Human Rights Watch (``HRW'') has
reported new evidence of dangerously subpar medical care in
immigration detention, including unreasonable delays in care
and unqualified medical staff that are likely to expose a
record number of immigrants to dangerous conditions. This
recent HRW report is only the latest of a series of shocking
reports documenting DHS's failure to provide care to ill or
injured immigrants in its custody.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which the United States has ratified, guarantees all
people the rights to be free from discrimination and
arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to due process,
including fair deportation procedures. Finally, noncitizens
who are detained have a right to humane conditions of
detention and are entitled to prompt review
[[Page H5255]]
of their detention by an independent court. The mass
expansion of mandatory detention and immigration detention
proposed by H.R. 3003 violates all of these international
human rights standards.
II. H.R. 3004 would increase mass incarceration of
immigrants, including survivors of persecution or torture, by
increasing criminal penalties for the mere act of migration--
in violation of international human rights standards.
Current law already criminalizes illegal reentry in
violation of international law and standards under 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1326, imposing a sentence of up to 20 years on anyone
convicted of illegal reentry after committing an aggravated
felony. According to data compiled by the Transactional
Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, in
fiscal year 2016 federal criminal prosecutions for illegal
entry, reentry, and similar immigration violations made up 52
percent of all federal prosecutions nationwide--surpassing
drugs, weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes.
Criminal penalties for unauthorized entry are obstacles for
identifying the victims of human rights abuses, and prevent
victims from seeking justice. They undermine human rights
protections afforded in international law, including the
right to seek asylum. The Special Rapporteur on the Human
Rights of Migrants has repeatedly stressed that where
detention is used as a punitive measure, it is
disproportionate and inappropriate, and stigmatizes
undocumented immigrants as criminals.
The criminal prosecution of illegal reentry has grown
exponentially over the past decade. In 2002 there were 8,000
prosecutions for illegal reentry; in 2012 these prosecutions
had increased to 37,000. Nearly 99 percent of illegal reentry
defendants were sentenced to federal prison time, ranging
from a few days to 10 years or more for felony reentry before
they are eventually deported.
Beyond the trend towards more aggressive criminal
prosecutions for illegal reentry, a 2015 U.S. Sentencing
Commission report found nearly 50 percent of people sentenced
in fiscal 2013 for illegal re-entry had at least one child
living in the U.S. Many of the individuals charged with
illegal reentry previously resided in the U.S. for many years
and are desperate to return to their family in the U.S.
On top of this longstanding trend of harsher criminal
prosecution for illegal reentry--the sponsors of H.R. 3004
would seek to expand the category of individuals subject to
illegal reentry prosecution to include people who surrender
themselves at the southern border to seek protection in the
U.S. The bill would also expand sentencing enhancements for
illegal reentry, and would prosecute people for illegal
reentry even if their previous removal orders were unlawful
or deprived them of the opportunity to seek protection. For
example, the bill would criminalize asylum seekers who return
to the U.S. after being previously denied the opportunity to
present their claims for protection.
While all sovereign states have a legitimate interest in
regulating entry into their territories, they can only do so
within the limits of their obligations under international
law. The U.S. government has an obligation under
international human rights law to ensure that its laws,
policies, and practices do not place immigrants at an
increased risk of human rights abuses. Specifically,
individuals have a right to seek asylum from persecution and
protection from refoulement, and prosecuting asylum seekers
prior to adjudication of their asylum applications violates
U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention. Similarly the
Convention Against Torture prohibits a State from expelling,
returning, or extraditing a person to another State where
there are substantial grounds for believing that s/he would
be in danger of being subjected to torture. Finally, all
individuals, regardless of immigration status, have a right
to family unity which can include limits on the State's power
to deport, as recognized by the Human Rights Committee's
interpretation of ICCPR obligations
All of these international human rights standards are
violated by H.R. 3004.
AIUSA strongly urges you to oppose both H.R. 3003 and H.R.
3004.
Sincerely,
Joanne Lin,
Senior Managing Director,
Advocacy and Government Affairs.
____
CWS Statement to Opposing H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals
Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law
As a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37
Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions and 34 refugee
resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service
(CWS) urges all Members of Congress to support the
longstanding efforts of law enforcement officials to foster
trusting relationships with the communities they protect and
serve. As we pray for peace and an end to senseless acts of
violence that are too prevalent in this country, CWS
encourages the U.S. Congress to refrain from politicizing
tragedies or conflating the actions of one person with an
entire community of our immigrant brothers and sisters and
oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and
H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would target
more than 600+ cities, counties, and states across the
country and threaten to take away millions of dollars in
federal funding that local police use to promote public
safety. Communities are safer when they commit to policies
that strengthen trust and cooperation between local law
enforcement, community leadership and institutions, and all
residents, regardless of immigration status. The Federal
government should not hurt intentional, community-based
policing efforts that are vital in communities across the
country. Many cities have already recognized that requests by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold individuals
beyond their court-appointed sentences violate due process
and have been found unconstitutional by federal courts. This
bill would raise profound constitutional concerns by
prohibiting localities from declining to comply with ICE
detainer requests even when such compliance would violate
federal court orders and the U.S. Constitution. Local police
that refuse ICE detainer requests see an increase in public
safety due to improved trust from the community. It is
precisely this trust that enables community members to report
dangerous situations without the fear of being deported or
separated from their families. When local police comply with
ICE detainer requests, more crimes go unreported because
victims and witnesses are afraid of being deported if they
contact the police. This bill would also undermine local
criminal prosecutions by allowing the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to ignore state or local criminal warrants and
refuse to transfer individuals to state or local custody in
certain circumstances. This bill would reduce community
safety by preventing state and local jurisdictions from
holding people accountable.
The United States already spends more than $18 billion on
immigration enforcement per year, more than all other federal
law enforcement agencies combined. H.R. 3004, Kate's Law,
would expand the federal government's ability to prosecute
individuals for ``illegal reentry'' and impose even more
severe penalties in these cases--even though prosecutions for
migration-related offenses already make up more than 50% of
all federal prosecutions. Yet, this bill does not include
adequate protections for individuals who reenter the U.S. in
order to seek protection, which would place asylum seekers at
risk of being returned to the violence and persecution they
fled. We have seen how Border Patrol's current practices
violate existing U.S. law and treaty obligations by
preventing viable asylum claims from moving forward. DHS has
found that in some areas, Border Patrol refers asylum seekers
for criminal prosecution despite the fact that they have
expressed fear of persecution. In May 2017, a report was
released highlighting that many asylum seekers, who had
expressed a fear of returning to their home countries are
being turned away by GBP agents. New barriers to protection
are unnecessary and would dangerously impede our obligations
under international and U.S. law.
Federal, state, and local policies that focus on
deportation do not reduce crime rates. Individuals are being
deported who present no risk to public safety and who are
long-standing community members, including parents of young
children. Immigrants come to this country to reunite with
family, work, and make meaningful contributions that enrich
their communities. Several studies over the last century have
affirmed that all immigrants, regardless of nationality or
status, are less likely than U.S. citizens to commit violent
crimes. A recent report found a correlation between the
increase in undocumented immigrants, and the sharp decline in
violent and property crime rates. Immigration is correlated
with significantly higher employment growth and a decline in
the unemployment rate, and immigrants have high
entrepreneurial rates, creating successful businesses that
hire immigrant and U.S. citizen employees.
As communities of faith, we are united by principles of
compassion, stewardship, and justice. CWS urges all Members
of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for
Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. What we need are
real solutions and immigration policies that treat our
neighbors with the dignity and respect that all people
deserve and affirm local law enforcement officer's efforts to
build trust with their communities.
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that Washington
doesn't always know best. We ought to trust our local law enforcement
officials, our local police as to what is effective in terms of
protecting the citizens of our community.
To introduce legislation that would essentially punish our local
police for doing what they think is in the best interest of their
communities, this bill should be renamed ``punish our local police,''
because that is what it does.
I can't believe that we are going down this road. Maybe it is a nice
sound bite, maybe it is a nice press release, maybe it fits in with the
Trump campaign rhetoric on immigrants and immigration; but this is just
a lousy idea. And I think if we did hearings on this bill, if we
actually spent some time being thoughtful about this issue, my
colleagues would come to that conclusion.
Again, I would say that what we should be talking about is fixing our
[[Page H5256]]
broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform.
The Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up to the plate and did it. It
is about time Members of this House have the guts to bring a
comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and fix our broken
immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3003. This is
a very positive first step toward coming to grips with an issue that
has divided this country because it is causing great damage to so many
Americans.
What we are talking about is not immigrant hysteria. That type of
mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, that is the true
racism because it hurts those people who have come here legally. Now,
what we have got here are legal immigrants who are being cast into the
same pot as illegals, with the opposition to this bill.
People who are here legally understand that we need protection for
people who are here in this country against, especially, criminals who
come from overseas and illegal aliens who are criminals, at that.
Working Americans of every race, religion, and ethnic group have seen
that their families are less secure, and they are even sometimes being
murdered by the insane lack of action on the part of our government to
protect our citizens.
Our number one responsibility is to make sure our own people, legal
immigrants, and all Americans of every race, creed, and color are
protected.
And what do they see?
This massive flood of illegals coming into our country, taking jobs,
bidding down wages, lowering the education standards and the healthcare
that most Americans rely upon.
{time} 1315
No wonder the American people want action. But then, when they are
faced with a city saying even criminals who have committed acts of
aggression, murder, et cetera, upon our citizens, that we are going to
let them just stay, and that there is going to be a block.
Whose side are you on is what this amendment is all about. Are we on
the side of the American people? Are we on the side of those victims
who work hard every day and try to raise their families; or are we on
the side of a massive flow of people, many of whom, and most of whom,
are good people?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Most of the people who come here, most of the people
flooding here, even the illegals, are basically wonderful people. But
that doesn't mean that we can bring in more than that, 1 million--
By the way, we need to understand, don't condemn America on its
immigration policy. We let a million legal immigrants into our country
every year, and that is more than the rest of the world combined. We
can be proud of that.
But, at the same time, we have to make sure that our people are
protected, that they don't lose their jobs, or they don't have to
accept less money for the same work because you have got somebody here
who will work for nothing.
We want to make sure when they need their healthcare, they get their
healthcare. That will bankrupt our system. Are we going to have a
sanctuary healthcare system, too, so anybody in the world can come here
and use up our scarce health dollars?
No, it is time for us to strike a blow for the protection of
Americans and legal immigrants of every race and religion and ethnic
background, not to show these things. Immigrant hysteria; shame, shame,
shame.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this
bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a
letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End
Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well
as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill;
and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice
in opposition to this bill.
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's
Law'' (H.R. 3004)
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200
national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R.
3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004,
``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they
would ultimately make the problems with our national
immigration system even worse than they already are.
H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states
and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate
balance between cooperating with federal immigration
authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints
imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At
the same time, it would do nothing to address the
constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration
``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past.
Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various
federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities,
such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless
jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims
to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions
across the country that have determined, as a matter of
constitutional law and sound public policy, including
community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals
beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS
detainer request.
The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in
San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called
``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly,
that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work
with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth
is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'')
throughout the country already aid in the identification of
individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action
through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken
into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have
determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain
individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the
Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings,
unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law
enforcement agencies are required to do.
H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns
raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave
many state and municipal governments in an untenable
position: either they must disregard their constitutional
responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between
the police and the communities they serve, or they will face
the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps
them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not
force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities.
H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to
come to the House floor this week, would significantly
increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who
reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over
other bills by the same name, in that it does not include
mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead
to a likely increase in the federal prison population without
any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's
``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would
build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions
do little but waste resources while failing to deter
unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not
expanded.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and
H.R. 3004.
Sincerely,
Vanita Gupta,
President & CEO.
____
American Civil Liberties Union,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 3003 (No Sanctuary for Criminals Act)
and H.R. 3004 (Kate's Law).
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the American Civil Liberties Union (``ACLU''), we submit this
letter to the House of Representatives to express our strong
opposition to H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,
and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
no sanctuary for criminals act (h.r. 3003)
H.R. 3003 conflicts with the principles of the Fourth
Amendment.
H.R. 3003 defies the Fourth Amendment by amending 8 USC
Section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'')
to force localities to comply with unlawful detainer requests
or risk losing federal funding. This is despite the fact that
an ``increasing number of federal court decisions'' have held
that ``detainer-based detention by state and local law
enforcement agencies violates the
[[Page H5257]]
Fourth Amendment,'' as recognized by former Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2014.
Disturbingly, H.R. 3003 seeks to penalize the 600+
localities that abide by the Fourth Amendment. These
jurisdictions have recognized that by entangling local
authorities and federal immigration enforcement, immigration
detainers erode trust between immigrant communities and local
law enforcement. In this way, immigration detainers
ultimately undermine public safety, as entire communities
become wary of seeking assistance from police and other
government authorities that are supposed to provide help in
times of need. Thus, by forcing jurisdictions to comply with
unlawful detainer requests, H.R. 3003 will only make
communities less safe, not more.
H.R. 3003 would also amend Section 287 of the INA to allow
the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS') to take custody
of a person being held under a detainer within 48 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays) ``but in no instance more
than 96 hours'' following the date that the individual would
otherwise be released from criminal custody. This, again,
raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, as the Supreme
Court has stated that the Constitution requires a judicial
finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. This
provision would disregard the Court's ruling entirely and
allow a local law enforcement agency to hold a person for up
to 7 days before requiring DHS intervention--and never
requiring the person be brought before a judge for a probable
cause hearing.
Protection against unreasonable detention by the government
is the bedrock of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which
provides that the government cannot hold anyone in jail
without getting a warrant or approval from a neutral
magistrate. This constitutional protection applies to
everyone in the United States--citizen and immigrant alike.
Immigration detainers, however, do not abide by these
standards. Detainers are one of the key tools that DHS uses
to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and
state law enforcement agencies. An immigration detainer is a
written request from DHS to that local law enforcement
agency, requesting that they detain an individual for an
additional 48 hours after the person's release date, in order
to allow immigration agents extra time to decide whether to
take that person into custody for deportation purposes.
DHS' use of detainers to imprison people without due
process, without any charges pending, and without probable
cause of a criminal violation flies in the face of our Fourth
Amendment protections. Policies that allow DHS to detain
people at-will are ripe for civil and human rights violations
and have resulted in widespread wrongful detentions,
including detentions of U.S. citizens. That is why many of
the 600+ localities targeted by H.R. 3003 have decided not to
execute a DHS immigration detainer request unless it is
accompanied by additional evidence, a determination of
probable cause, or a judicial warrant.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3003 does nothing to address the
fundamental constitutional problems plaguing DHS's use of
immigration detainers. Rather than fix the constitutional
problems by requiring a judicial warrant, the bill
perpetuates the unconstitutional detainer practices and
forces the federal government to absorb legal liability for
the constitutional violations which will inevitably result.
This is irresponsible lawmaking. Instead of saddling
taxpayers with the liability the federal government will
incur from Fourth Amendment violations, Congress should end
the use of DHS's unconstitutional detainer requests.
H.R. 3003 violates the Due Process Clause by allowing DHS
to detain people indefinitely without a bond hearing.
Section 4 of H.R. 3003 radically expands our immigration
detention system by amending Section 236(c) of the INA to
authorize mandatory detention ``without time limitation.''
This empowers DHS to detain countless immigrants for as long
as it takes to conclude removal proceedings--even if that
takes years--without the basic due process of a bond hearing
to determine if their imprisonment is even justified. This is
a clear constitutional violation, as the federal courts have
overwhelmingly held that jailing immigrants for months and
years without bond hearings raises serious problems under the
Due Process Clause.
Although the bill claims to provide for the ``detention of
criminal aliens,'' it massively expands mandatory detention
to people with no criminal record whatsoever, including
immigrants who lack legal papers or who overstay a tourist
visa. The ``lock `em up'' approach to immigration enforcement
is cruel, irrational, and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
has permitted brief periods of mandatory detention only in
cases where individuals are charged with deportation based on
certain criminal convictions. The Court has not endorsed the
mandatory lock-up of people who have never committed a crime.
Kate's Law (H.R. 3004)
H.R. 3004 is piecemeal immigration enforcement that expands
America's federal prison population and lines the coffers of
private prison companies.
Increasing the maximum sentences for illegal reentrants is
unnecessary, wasteful, and inhumane. H.R. 3004 envisions a
federal criminal justice system that prosecutes asylum-
seekers, persons providing humanitarian assistance to
migrants in distress, and parents who pose no threat to
public safety in returning to the U.S. to reunite with
children who need their care (individuals with children in
the United States are 50 percent of those convicted of
illegal reentry).
Current law already imposes a sentence of up to 20 years on
anyone convicted of illegally reentering the country who has
committed an aggravated felony. U.S. Attorneys' Offices
aggressively enforce these provisions. According to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, immigration prosecutions account for
52 percent of all federal prosecutions--surpassing drugs,
weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes. Nearly 99
percent of illegal reentry defendants are sentenced to
federal prison time.
H.R. 3004 would drastically expand America's prison
population of nonviolent prisoners at a time when there is
bipartisan support to reduce the federal prison population.
It offends due process by cutting off all collateral attacks
on unjust prior deportation orders, despite the Supreme
Court's contrary ruling in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez.
Profiteering by private prison companies has been the main
consequence of border-crossing prosecutions, which the
Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of
Inspector General have criticized as lacking sound deterrent
support.
H.R. 3004 is an integral part of this administration's mass
deportation and mass incarceration agenda. Longer sentences
for illegal reentry are not recommended by any informed
federal criminal-justice stakeholders; rather they represent
this administration's anti-immigrant obsession and would
expensively expand substandard private jail contracting
despite the life-threatening conditions in these facilities.
In conclusion, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 are fraught with
constitutional problems that threaten the civil and human
rights of our immigrant communities, undercut law
enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe, and would
balloon our federal prison population by financing private
prison corporations. Rather than taking a punitive approach
to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to
balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep
their communities safe, Congress should end DHS's
unconstitutional detainer practices or fix the constitutional
deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer
requests. Congress should also repeal mandatory detention so
that all immigrants receive the basic due process of a bond
hearing and reject any attempt to unfairly imprison
individuals who are not a threat to public safety.
For more information, please contact ACLU Director of
Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
National Political Director.
Lorella Praeli,
Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
____
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
[[Page H5258]]
(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% of
advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are describing
fear of contacting the police; 75% of them reporting that
victims are afraid of going to court; and 43% 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.
HR 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. 3009 imposes
expanded bases for detention without consideration of
mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these
victims.
In addition, HR. 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 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.
[[Page H5259]]
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.
____
June 27, 2017.
Dear Representative McGovern: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic
Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No
Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law''
(H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of
Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a
country that prides itself on being the land of welcome and
opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect
our shared values.
As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration
reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million
undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an
enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps
people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress,
localities across the country still have the responsibility
to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill
this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual
trust to root out crime and promote public safety,
encouraging community members to cooperate with local
authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.
3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will
make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the
hearts of our immigrant families.
Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize
immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the
United States, and often are simply trying to be reunited
with their family. Punishing immigrants for wanting to
provide for their families with fines and imprisonment is
harsh and cruel--we, as a nation, are called to be better
than that. Again, we ask Congress to abandon the
``enforcement first'' policies that have been the de facto
U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, yielding too many
costs and too few results. Our antiquated system that does
not accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation
today does not serve our national interests and does not
respect the basic human rights of migrants who come to this
nation fleeing persecution or in search of employment for
themselves and better living conditions for their children.
Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not
pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political
leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for
international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity
and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over
fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all
individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor
and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that
further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to
immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of
refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that
we, as Americans, strive to uphold.
Sincerely,
Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS,
Executive Director,
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, again, would simply say that if we
really want to do something about immigration, we ought to come
together, like the Senate did not long ago, and pass comprehensive
immigration reform. But, apparently, that is not in the DNA of the
current leadership of this House.
Instead, we have bills that demagogue the immigration issue, that
demean immigrants, that cause hysteria, and I find that very
unfortunate.
This bill is a bad idea. It falls in the same category as that other
bad, stupid idea of building a wall across our country.
What we ought to be doing is serious legislating, enough demagoguing,
and let's get back to doing the people's business, and that includes
comprehensive immigration reform.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we need to fix our immigration laws. When a
mother in the Philippines has to wait 25 years or more for a visa to
reunite with her son in the United States, is that system working? No.
To lose the entire childhood and young adulthood of your son? What
mother wouldn't try to enter the United States some other way, in fact,
any way that she could in order to be with her child?
When your daughter is threatened with rape and murder if she doesn't
become a sexual slave to gang members; when your son and the entire
family is threatened with death if the boy doesn't join the gangs,
wouldn't you run away and try to find safety someplace else?
And when the family arrives at the U.S. border and they actively seek
out the U.S. Border Patrol and voluntarily surrender to them and ask
for safe refuge and asylum, is that really entering our borders
illegally?
You know, when you have been an upstanding member of the community
for 10, 15, 20 years or more in the United States, and you get pulled
over because the tags have expired on your car, or your license, do you
really deserve to be deported, to tear apart your family, to leave
behind the businesses that you have spent a lifetime creating?
And does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that if this father or
mother is deported, that they won't do everything they can to try to
come back to be with their kids?
I mean, these are real stories. It is not fiction. They are not
fantasies. It is real. And if you listened to people in your community,
you would know these stories.
If you paid attention to your local police, you would know why it is
so damaging to turn them in to ICE, because they rely on these
community members to inform them of criminal activities in their
community. The police don't want to do what you are asking them to do.
Why would you force this on them? And why would you punish them by
taking away essential Federal funding to help them protect the citizens
of this country?
This is a bad idea. I guess, maybe it is a good press release. Maybe
Steve Bannon thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it is a good sound bite
for Trump. Who knows what the rationale behind this is. But it is not
sensible. It is not thoughtful.
So if you want to get serious about these issues, you know, come
together, like the Senate did, in a bipartisan way, and come up with
comprehensive immigration reform. That is our duty. That is our job, as
Members of Congress, not this garbage. This is a waste of time. This is
an insult to the American people. We ought to be able to do better.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this. I urge them to
defeat the previous question so we can have a debate and vote on
whether or not to increase the minimum wage to $15 to give people a
raise. Again, we have to do that because this House is being so tightly
controlled that you can't get anything to the floor.
I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are
talking about here today on immigration is under a closed rule. We will
have another closed rule tomorrow. So much for democracy. So much for
deliberative process. So much for openness. There is no such thing
here. I mean, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy
goes to die, where everything gets shut down.
We need to do better. This process stinks, and this bill is lousy. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no''
on the rule, and if it gets to the point we have to debate this, vote
``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do believe that in just a little bit we will be
debating this bill. I do believe in just a short time it will pass.
I think what was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the frustrations
of my friend, and I believe they are true frustrations, and the stories
of folks coming from terrible places around the world wanting to get
here. We are the light on a hill. We are the ones that everybody wants
to come to. I grant you that.
But I do have a question. For these folks who are leaving disaster,
places in which law and order are not enforced, in which people are
dying, and they are striving to get someplace else,
[[Page H5260]]
why in the world would we want to get to here to find that we have a
situation in which local law enforcement can sort of decide what they
want to do, where law and order is not followed?
You are leaving one area to get to an area in which what they say is
law and order is what is needed and what is followed and why they come
here, but yet we are saying no.
I think it has also been, possibly, Mr. Speaker, a vast
mischaracterization to say that all police are against this. In fact,
if we have seen, there was 200 that was identified earlier, the vast
majority of police departments in this country uphold the law. So let's
don't make a blanket assessment of police here.
I think it is just an interesting development here. I think you can
talk about laws. You can like laws, you cannot like laws, you can do
something about immigration.
But I do think we also need to address something else. It wasn't a
part of this bill, but we wanted to make it a part of this bill, and
that is comprehensive immigration reform.
I do agree with my friend. There needs to be immigration reform. I
think it needs to start with security and safety and protection. It
needs to start with actually enforcing law, and then begin the
foundation of finding a way to get workers here--our guest worker
program, our ag worker program, the things that we need to make our
expansion so that we do it properly. I agree completely.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do find it has been amazing here because, just in
the context of this debate, these were words that were used: We're
demagoguing this issue. We didn't have the guts to address this issue.
Our DNA of leadership is to obstruct or to not bring this forward.
Well, I think the one thing that I do need to remind is, this body,
Mr. Speaker, if you are very familiar with this, over the last few
weeks, we have been dealing with a very difficult issue--we passed it
out of the House--that is healthcare, which was passed when this body
was filled in a majority of a different party, my friends across the
aisle, when they had, at times, filibuster-proof majorities.
They worked to pass healthcare. They worked to pass Dodd-Frank. They
worked to pass their priorities.
My interesting question is, they did not work to pass comprehensive
immigration reform. I am not sure why now we decide that it is such
their issue that they are now blaming us, many of us who want to find a
way forward.
But I think the answer is plain and obvious in history. They chose
not to do it. I repeat, they chose not to do it.
So I think in the discussion of this battle, we will continue these
discussions. We will continue to have differences of opinion. I think
it is sort of amazing though that we do have to have a discussion here
on telling police to enforce the law and work out the details as we go,
work out what is in this bill.
But it also is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who
have had to look at the tragedies left behind as a result of some of
these decisions that they have made to ``better'' their community, the
deaths, the tragedies, then it is a pretty interesting choice. Is the
death more important or less important than your policy?
All we are simply saying is: just don't take the money. Look at it
from that perspective.
And we will continue to have these debates. My friend and I will
continue to be passionately different on this, and that is okay. That
is what this floor is for because, at the end of the day, we are going
to have a vote. One side is going to win and one side is going to lose
in this vote. And the debate is going to happen, and the bill is going
to come forward. There will be another vote. And then it will go to the
Senate.
I disagree with my friend from Massachusetts, respect his opinion,
but, in this case, I believe the debate is fairly clear to most
Americans. All we are asking is, and what the current law already
states, follow the rules. And all we are simply saying is, follow the
rules.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 414 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
15) to provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 15.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX,
[[Page H5261]]
this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed
by 5-minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 331]
YEAS--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Comstock
Cummings
Long
Napolitano
Pelosi
Renacci
Scalise
Stivers
{time} 1349
Mr. TAKANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
[[Page H5262]]
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Collins (NY)
Cummings
Long
Napolitano
Renacci
Sanchez
Scalise
Stivers
{time} 1357
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332, providing for
consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act I was
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
331 and 332 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the
Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3003.
I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 414--Rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 3003--No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.
____________________