Belongs. And third, it fixes the constitutional due process issue by removing the hearing from the v. A. To the judicial system. And the last thing i will note is something that i wholeheartedly agree with senator durbin on. He said yesterday quote we need to find a reasonable way to identify those suffering from serious Mental Illness who would be a danger to themselves or families and others and to sort out those that dont fit in that category. Well, senator durbin, i have made clear my amendment does exactly that. Thats why, then, are the democrats refusing to fix this problem if they admit the problem exists. This is an outrage. We all know that veterans are being treated unfairly. My amendment fixes the problem, yet democrats object. What is dangerous is that democrats are allowing veterans to be subjected to a process that casts their Second Amendment rights aside. All of this smells of hypocrisy. For months the democrats and their allies have been attacking me and the republicans for not voting on the Supreme Court nominee, but the democrats wont even allow a simple vote on protecting a veterans Constitutional Rights. Can you imagine the chaos that will reign over this chamber again if the democrats were to take control over the senate . I will continue to stand firm in defense of our veterans population. I will continue to fight to protect their Constitutional Rights from offensive and oppressive government outreach. Our veterans are a special group. They give life and limb for our safety so that we can sleep in peace at night. The iron fist of government must submit to the Constitutional Rights of the veterans and those Constitutional Rights have been taken away by the v. A. Willynilly just because somebody needs a fiduciary, nothing to do with the competence of that veteran to not be able to buy a gun. I yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. A senator thank you, mr. President. I rise this afternoon to speak about amendment 4012. I want to thank my cosponsor senator sessions, vitter, canton and inhofe. Mr. Toomey this amendment addresses a very serious Public Safety threat and that is the threat posed by sanctuary cities. This is a problem, mr. President , thats not a theoretical abstraction. Its a problem that some americans know all too well. One father in particular. On july 1, 2015, just last year, jim steinly was walking arm in arm with his daughter kate on a pier in San Francisco. A gunman opened fire, hit kate, and within moments she died in her fathers arms. Her last words were help me, dad. Now whats maddening about this, mr. President , is the shooter should have never been on the pier that day in the first place. He was an illegal immigrant. Here illegally, he had been convicted of seven felonies and hed been deported five times. But it gets worse. Just three months prior to his shooting and killing kate steinle, the San Francisco police had him in custody. They had him in custody. Federal immigration officials knew that the San Francisco police had him in custody. They knew that he was here illegally in violation of multiple deportations, a violent criminal convicted on multiple occasions, and they said hold him till we get somebody there to pick him up and deport him. But the police refused to hold him. Instead they released the shooter out into the public. Why did they do that . Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. And that means that they are a city that specifically and by law within the city, they forbid their police from cooperating with federal immigration officials, even when the police want to cooperate. Its against the law in the city to do so. Now, the local police and president obamas administration, they agree that with respect to a dangerous person, the federal and local Law Enforcement authorities ought to cooperate. But the local politicians in San Francisco in this case have overridden that judgment, and so the police who had every opportunity to prevent this man from being on the pier that night instead released him. He went on to kill kate steinle. As a father of three young children, i cant even imagine the pain that family has gone through, but, mr. President , sadly the steinles are not alo alone. According to the department of Homeland Security, our current Administrations Department of Homeland Security during an eighthmonth period that they examined last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions released over 8,000 Illegal Immigrants and 1800 of them later were arrested for criminal acts. It included two cities that arrested individuals who had been arrested they released individuals who had been arrested for child sex abuse, and in both cases the individuals released later sexually assaulted other children again. You know, youd think that in the wake of these tragedies, youd think elected officials across america would end this practice of having these dangerous sanctuary city policies. Sadly, that is not the case. In the biggest city in my state by far, philadelphia, theyve taken the opposite approach. In fact, theyve imposed one of the most extreme versions of sanctuary cities anywhere in america. Two weeks ago the current president obamas secretary of Homeland Security visited philadelphia for the specific purpose of trying to persuade the City Government to make a little tiny exception to their sanctuary city policy. Heres what he wanted. He wanted to allow, change the policy so that the Philadelphia Police would be able to notify federal immigration officials that theyre about to release from their custody a person here if the person has been convicted of a violent felony or convicted of a crime involving a gang or hes a suspected terrorist. The mayor of philadelphia refused. So even under those circumstances, the police of philadelphia are forbidden from cooperating and sharing that, even just the information with federal immigration officials. So what are the kinds of consequences for this . Well, consider the case of alberto suarez. In 2010 he kid naped and raped a girl from raped kidnapped and raped a girl. They bragged that the police would never be able to catch him because hes here illegally. Five months later he kidnapped a 22yearold woman from a philadelphia bus stop and he raped her. Now, hes been apprehended. Hes pleaded guilty. Hes awaiting sentencing but some day hes going to be released. And under the current Philadelphia City policy of being a sanctuary city, the police cannot inform federal immigration officials when theyre releasing him. This is ridiculous. Or imagine that the Philadelphia Police have in their custody an illegal immigrant whom the f. B. I. Suspects of plotting a terrorist attack. The department of Homeland Security might very reasonably ask the police hold on to him till we can get an agent down there, take him into custody, and ask him some questions because we suspect that hes involved with a terrorist plot. The Philadelphia Police response . Not by their choice but the response by virtue of philadelphia being a sanctuary city to the federal official, come back again after hes actually committed the terrorist act and then convicted of it and then well see if we can help you. This, mr. President , makes no sense at all. So its no wonder that leaders across the political spectrum, this is not a partisan thing. This policy has been criticized by former philadelphia mayor, former pennsylvania governor, and democrat ed randel. Its been criticized by president obamas secretary of Homeland Security, pennsylvania Law Enforcement officials across the political spectrum, and let me be very, very clear. This is not principally about immigration. Its really not about immigration at all. Its about criminal violent and dangerous criminals. Everybody knows, i certainly know the vast majority of immigrants are never going to commit a violent crime. It isnt about them. Its about the fact that if you have any significant population and certainly 11 Million People here illegally, some subset of that population will be violent criminals. We know that. And so, mr. President , ive got an amendment. Its modeled on a bill that the senate voted on last october. It was supported by a bipartisan majority of senators in that vote. And it deals with this problem. Heres what it does. It says, first of all, theres an i wont say legitimate but an understandable reason why some communities have become sanctuary communities. And thats because a Court Decision has created a legal liability for the cities if they at the request of the department of Homeland Security detain someone who later turns out to have been the wrong person. Well, that legal liability has scared a number of communities. Its understandable. And so this amendment changes that. It makes it clear that when the local officer, the local police are in compliance with the department of Homeland Security detainer request, the local police have the same authority as the department of Homeland Security. And if that person has been identified wrongly, then the liability still exists. The person if their civil rights have been violated, they can sue, but the liability is with the department of Homeland Security as it should be and not against the local Law Enforcement who are simply acting on behalf temporarily of the department of Homeland Security. Having corrected that problem if this amendment passes, what we say is if you want to nevertheless be a sanctuary city and refuse to allow the local police to cooperate with federal immigration officials, then were going to withhold Community Development block grant funds from such a community. These are the funds, as you know, that have great discretion in the hantdzs of local hands of local elected officials to spend on various projects. The fact is sanctuary cities impose a very real cost, a real cost for the federal government, a real cost the most important costs by far is the danger to society that it imposes, and so its entirely reasonable for the federal government to withhold some of these grants in the event that a city chooses to inflict that cost on the rest of us. Mr. President , this legislation is endorsed by the federal Law Enforcement officers association, the National Sheriffs association, the National Association of police organizations, the International Union of police associations, which is a division of the aflcio. Its a simple common sense amendment and stands for the simple principle that the safety of the American People matters. The life of kate steinle matters. Now, let me just right up front i want to defunct some of the misinformation that is occasionally promulgated about this amendment. One is the idea it would discourage people from coming forward and reporting crimes or reporting that they witnessed a crime or that they were a victim of crime and, therefore, its a bad idea. Well, the fact is our legislation has been drafted in such a way that if a local community has a law that says local Law Enforcement shall not inquire about the immigration status of a crime victim or witness, according to our legislation that doesnt make you a sanctuary city. So any city would still be free to offer that protection to people so that they would not have to fear deportation for disclosing a crime. The fact is this amendment is jermaine. Jermaine. It was timely filed. This is the right venue. This is the right time and this is the legislation to consider this. Its really time to stop with this political correct nonsense and being so worried that we cant offend anyone that we are going to risk the safety of our communities. And so, mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that i may offer my amendment number 4012. The presiding officer is there objection . A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed , reserving my right to object, the senator has already pointed out issues with respect to immigration law, with respect to Public Safety. But what i believe is at the remedy of cutting off cdbg fund something not the aappropriate response to these very serious problems. Cdbg fund something available throughout the nation, to large communities, small communities and in many cases it provides support for Public Safety projects, infrastructure that protects people, and on and on and on. So with all due respect to the senator from pennsylvania, i would object to making the amendment pending at this time. The presiding officer objection is heard mple the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Toomey mr. President , i just have to say with all due respect to my friend and colleague from rhode island, this is exactly what americans are so fed up with. There is a real problem out there, a real problem with Public Safety. They know it. This is a ridiculous and indefensible policy. But im willing to have debate about it. I did not ask for unanimous consent that my amendment be adopted. I asked for consent that we debate it and have a vote. And if a majority of senators disagrees with me, then i dont know why they cant come down here and cast a vote and let us know. Its germane. Its in order. It complies with all the rules. And the status quo means dangerous criminals are being released onto our streets. Thats a fact. I can tell you ill tell you whats going on here. We have colleagues who are afraid to cast a vote. They are afraid of having to make a choice. Theyre afraid if they vote with me to put pressure on cities to end sing ware cities, its going to offend some cities. They dont want do that. If they vote against it, they know theyre endangering their own constituents. They dont want their constituents to know that. So rather than standing upped and making a decision, when do they do . They say, lets not allow the debate. Lets not allow the amendment. This is exactly what the American People are so fed up with, mr. President. But i am not im not giving up on this. This is a very, very important issue. We have a responsibility to be stewards of the money that we give these cities, and i think the vast majority of pennsylvanians, the people that i represent, they want me to be a steward thats looking after their safety. The status quo doesnt do that. This amendment would solve a very important problem. It is outrageous that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to have that debate, afraid to go on record, afraid to let their constituents know whether they support sanctuary cities or not, and were not finished with this, mr. President. I yield the floor. Ms. Collins mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from maine. Ms. Collins i would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from ohio. Mr. Portman mr. President , i come to the floor today to talk about the issue the presiding officer the senate is in a quorum call. Mr. Portman mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Portman mr. President , i come to the floor today to talk about the heroin and Prescription Drug epidemic thats gripping my state and our country. I come to talk about the 200,000 people in ohio who are addicted. I come to talk about the Police Officers during police week who are doing their jobs to address this issue and why they need more help from us and how we should provide that to them. This is the sixth time i have come to the floor since the Senate Passed back on march 10 legislation called the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. It was voted on by a 941 vote in this chamber, which is highly unusual. That never happens around here. It happened because in every single state, people are seeing this addiction epidemic overdose issue. We need to address it. The house has been working on its own legislation. I have come here every single week that we have been in session since we passed our legislation to urge the house to act. I come this week to thank the house for acting because on friday last week, the house of representatives passed by again a large bipartisan vote legislation 18 different bills that were combined into one bill to deal with this opioid epidemic. Its very similar in some respects to the legislation we passed in the senate. In other respects it has additional provisions i think are very helpful. In other respects, it doesnt pick up everything thats in the Senate Legislation. Our focus here in the senate was to have a comprehensive approach, and i believe that by including some of the senate provisions in the housepassed version well end up with a more comprehensive approach, and thats whats needed. In the senate, we spent three months working with the house, in fact, on companion legislation. We had a number of srcheses here in washington, d. C. , five different conferences on different issues to deal with this i