Tougher penalties on undocumented immigrants who reenter the u. S. After being deported. The second bill would penalize socalled century cities that refuse to cooperate with deportation forces. It passed in a mostly partyline vote. Here is part of that debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. Goodlatte, seek recognition . Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 414, i call up h. R. 3003, the no sanctuary for criminals act. The speaker pro tempore the clerk will report the title of the bill. The clerk h. R. 3003, a bill neend the immigration and nationality act to modify provisions relating to assistance by states and political subdivision of states and the enforcement of federal immigration laws, and for other purposes. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to House Resolution 414, the bill is considered as read. The gentleman from virginia, mr. Goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous materials on h. R. 3003. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. Members, please take your conversations off the floor. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. Mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of the no sanctuary for criminals act. This simple, straightforward bill combats dangerous sanctuary policies that permit criminals to go free. Were all too familiar with how sanctuary policies have devastated families across the United States. And today were taking action to prevent these senseless tragedies and save american lives. For years the lack of Immigration Enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives. The Obama Administration encouraged or at the very least turned a blind eye to jurisdictions nationwide that implemented sanctuary policies. Designed to prevent u. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to effectively enforce federal law. Jurisdictions continue to pass legislation and implement policies aimed at stymiing and maligning the immigration and Customs Enforcement. Earlier this year, a Baltimore City councilmember introduced a resolution calling on i. C. E. To arrest only those posing a, quote, serious risk, end quote. In discussing this initiative, the councilmember likened i. C. E. Officers to nazis several times. Such rhetoric is represent preherseth sandlinible, creating a moral equivalent between genocide and a nation exercising a fundamental right and obligation of sovereignty. In a deeply troubling move on the other coast, San Francisco announced that it would no longer participate in the joint Terrorism Task force because of concerns that the task forces duties may coincide with Immigration Enforcement. Sanctuary policies often focus on flouting i. C. E. Detainers. Notices issued by i. C. E. To allow it to take custody of aliens in Law Enforcement custody in order to initiate removal proceedings. These irresponsible policies have led to a sharp drop in isis intake of aliens from criminal detention facilities, which forces i. C. E. Agents to engage in the far more time consuming and dangerous task of picking them up on the streets. This, among other factors, led to a drop in the number of criminal aliens removed from the interior of the United States from almost 87,000 in fiscal year 2014 to approximately 63,500 the following two fiscal years. We must discourage not encourage sanctuary policies and practices. H. R. 3003 addresses sanctuary policies and also takes Great Strides in clarifying federal immigration detainer policy. Since the 1990s, federal law has barred jurisdictions from restricting communication with federal immigration officials regarding immigration status. However, this provision has never been enforced. H. R. 3003 amends current law and expands this prohibition against impeding federal Law Enforcement. Instead of merely focusing on communication, the bill ensures that no jurisdiction may restrict assistance or compliance with Immigration Enforcement. To be clear, this bill imposes noar firmive duty to act on no affirmative duty to act on the part of any jurisdiction. Should a jurisdiction not comply with this provision, the jurisdiction will not be eligible for certain Grant Programs administered by the departments of justice and Homeland Security. Eligibility for many of these Grant Programs is already predicated on compliance with this provision in the immigration and nationality act. This section is also in line with the recent memo by attorney general sessions outlining compliance with this provision as the single factor that the Justice Department will use in identifying sanctuary jurisdiction. Regarding detainer policy, congress has long heard that jurisdictions will not comply with i. C. E. Requests to hold individuals due to a lack of probable cause inherent in the detainer. I am pleased that h. R. 3003 provides the probable cause standards necessary to ensure that i. C. E. Only places detainers on aliens for whom they have probable cause and are deportable. In addition, the bill mandates that i. C. E. Must take custody of the subject of a detainer within 48 hours, including weekends and holidays. Jurisdictions comply in good faith with detainer requests will be immune from liability associated with that detainer, and if such inaction does arise, the u. S. Government will substitute itself as the defendant. This ensures that jurisdictions do not go bankrupt de defending against neverending litigation. And in those jurisdictions that refuse to honor a detainer, the victim or victims family will be provided with the opportunity to bring a lawsuit against that jurisdiction. The third section of h. R. 3003, is named for sara root and grant ronnebeck, two young people whose lives were suddenly taken by criminal aliens who remain at large today. This section was originally introduced as separate bills by Judiciary Committee members steve king and andy biggs who worked tirelessly to bring these tragic cases to the attention of the committee and the congress. This section provides that aliens who are arrested or charged with serious crimes that result in death or serious Bodily Injury of another must be held without bond during the pendency of their removal proceeding. In addition, aliens convicted of even one drunk driving offense will also be ineligible for bond during their removal proceeding. The latter would have prevented the august, 2010 death of sister denise mosier, a catholic nun in virginia at the hands of a drunk driving illegal alien who was released from i. C. E. Custody on bond. These classes of individuals present a clear and present danger to society and should not be permitted to roam our communities during the pendency of their removal hearing. This will provide better Immigration Enforcement and the peace of mind that no criminal will have sanctuary from our immigration laws. Mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. I conyers mr. Chairman, would yield myself as much time s i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Conyers members of the house of representatives, i want to be clear at the outset of this debate that this legislation does nothing to make our communities safer. And it does nothing to improve our immigration system. Instead, h. R. 3003 will trample the rights of states and localities to determine what is in the best interest of their Public Safety and will conscript Law Enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. The ultimate experts on Community Safety are communities themselves, and hundreds of them have determined that as Community Trust increases, crime decreases. This is because immigrants will come out of the shadows and report crimes to the local Law Enforcement when they are not threatened with deportation. In fact, a recent study found that Community Trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts. Against this considered judgment, h. R. 3003 forces localities to abandon Community Trust principles and mandates the conscription of local officers into federal Immigration Enforcement. Some localities, of course, would rightfully reject this conscription. As punishment, h. R. 3003 would rob them of vital and Law Enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals and boost ommunity policing ranks. Localities, therefore, would face a losing choice. They can abandon Community Trust policies and leave their communities in danger or they can leave Community Trust policies in place but for Law Enforcement funding leaving their communities in danger. Loselose. Now, its important that we consider that this is more than just bad policy. Also likely it is unconstitutional for multiple reasons. First, h. R. 3003 likely violates the 10th amendment by commandeering states to comply with detainer requests that drain their resources. N addition, the bill changes to the department of Homeland Security detainer authority exacerbates the current Fourth Amendment concerns associated with immigration detainers. The bill does not require any particular finding about the individual that may form the basis of a probable cause determination and fails to provide for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause. In fact, in a recent study found that Community Trust jurisdictions are actually safer than their counterparts. Against this considered judgment, h. R. 3003 forces localities to abandon Community Trust principles and mandates the conscription of local officers into federal Immigration Enforcement. Some localities, of course, would rightfully resist this conscription. As punishment, this bill would rob them of vital Law Enforcement funding that they depend on to prevent crime, prosecute criminals and boost ommunity policing ranks. The bill further compounds constitutional concerns by eliminating ability for detained individual to obtain an independent, individualized review of his or her bond bond determination by a neutral decision maker. For these reasons and there are others i urge my colleagues to please oppose this dangerous, meanspirited and constitutionally suspect legislation. And mr. Chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from virginia is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Speaker, at this time its my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. King, a member of the Judiciary Committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. Mr. King thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, i want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee not only for working with and cooperating on all this legislation but for the relentless work thats come forward in the committee. Hes spent a lot of time on this floor and in committee and were getting some progress here today. This is a big week and were starting to restore the rule of law and the sanctuary cities legislation which is before us right now is something i just looked back through my records and wondered how long have i slug away on this. The First Amendment i brought was in 2005 to cut off some funding to sanctuary cities and then in each appropriations opportunity along with c. J. S. And Homeland Security, when there was a chance, id bring another amendment, another amendment. 2005 on through 2014, 2015 and in 2015, i introdeuced the broader sanctuary cities legislation which is the basis for this legislation. I also had the misfortune and fortune of having the root family as my constituents and sarah root was tragically killed by an illegal alien in the streets and her father and mother have both been here to testify. Her mothers in town this day, and her father, scott root, testified before the committee and he said this. They bailed the killer of my daughter out of jail for less money than it took to bury her and he was out of this country before we could have the funeral. Those words were some of the most chilling and mournful words i have heard in this congress, and this bill today honors his daughters life, michelles daughters life, sarah, and also brings into play the enforcement that we need to have. We got to put an end to sanctuary cities, ban those policies which the bill does, block the d. O. J. Grants if they dont comply with the federal law and refuse the warrants to the sanctuary cities because theyll just release them on the streets. Let i. C. E. Take custody within them for 48 hours and the good faith hold harmless for i. C. E. Detainers when they got the wrong recommendation out of the Obama Administration. This makes the right recommendation to local jurisdiction. The private cause of action is also very, very useful for us. Its a solid bill. I thank the chairman and all those who put the work into this today. I urge its adoption and yield back to the chairman. Mr. Goodlatte mr. Chairman. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Goodlatte thank you. Id like to mr. Conyers mr. Chairman. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Conyers id like to yield five minutes to a Senior Member of the house judiciary ommittee, ms. Zoe lofgren of california. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady from california is recognized. Ms. Lofgren thank you, mr. Speaker. This bill is not about helping our immigration system. It puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how to police themselves and protect that we here in d. C. Know better than you do, local police, across the United States. Now, 600 or more local governments engage in what they call Community Trust policies. These policies promote, among other things, allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences, and years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach st ensures these communities safety. I think thats why we received communications from the National Fraternal order of police in opposition to this bill, from the Law Enforcement task force. Thats 36 this was and chiefs across the country in opposition to this bill. From the major county this was of america in opposition to this bill. From the National Task force to end sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as u. S. Conference of mayors, National League of cities and the National Association of counties. I. C. E. Is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose Police department has told me, San Jose Police are not enforcing the securities laws, theyre not enforcing the federal tax laws, theyre not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Theyre doing their job to protect their community against crime. Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding from jurisdictions. And what would that fund be funding be . Gangs. Ants for violent ts grants for the antiheroin task force and Methamphetamine Task force. Grants to prevent terrorists from getting into the United States. Grants on the Biowatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting biohazards and killing us all. Thats not smart to take those programs away from local governments that are working with us to help keep america safe. Now, i always think, as i said earlier, were not doing bumper stickers here. Were doing laws, and its important to take a look at the details of whats in this proposed bill. In addition to banning collaborative grants with localities, the remedy thats made available is if a community has a Community Trust policy, the department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants, legal warrants that are issued by that jurisdiction. Thats astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth Am