Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to be voting on a very important bill. We will have the opportunity to vote to proceed to a bill that deals with sanctuary cities and immigration policies that are a serious threat to the public safety. We will move to take up the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act--a bill that should put an end to sanctuary jurisdictions, give law enforcement important tools they need to detain criminals, and increase penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders of our immigration laws.

Some of these sanctuary policies are created when a local government unit, such as a city or county executive body, passes an ordinance prohibiting their officers from communicating with Federal immigration and law enforcement officials. Now, there is another way: Some sanctuary policies come about simply because local law enforcement initiates its own policies of providing safe harbor for undocumented immigrants. And then another way: Some sanctuary policies develop because law enforcement officers are afraid they will be sued if they enforce immigration laws and detain an individual for their unlawful immigration status.

In summation, these policies and practices have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to be released back into the community, and the effects have been disastrous. I am going to speak about those effects. America saw these policies play out in July when Kate Steinle was innocently killed while walking along a San Francisco pier with her father. The murderer, who was illegally in the country and actually deported five times prior to that day, was released into the community by a sanctuary jurisdiction that did not honor the detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The suspect in Kate's death admitted he was in San Francisco because of its sanctuary policies. That sums up the problem our bill addresses.

Here is Kate--no longer with us--as one example. I have several other examples because people tried to tell us you should not change policy based upon one murder. Maybe so, maybe not, but 5 years of statistics shows about 121 people killed by people that have been deported for criminal activities in this country and then come back in. I want to tell you what our bill does about that, but I want to first tell you about some examples.

In July, our Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing called ``Oversight of the Administration's Misdirected Immigration Enforcement Policies: Examining the Impact on Public Safety and Honoring the Victims.'' That is the committee's hearing title. This hearing was an opportunity to hear the voices of Americans who have been impacted by these very indefensible policies while also conducting oversight of the administration's policies and tolerance toward sanctuary jurisdictions.

Jim Steinle, Kate's father, expressed his family's desire to see legislation enacted to take undocumented felons off our streets. The committee was very moved by his presence and testimony--obviously something that wasn't very easy for him. He talked about how Kate ``had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room.'' He told us how she died in his arms that day, despite her plea in her dying words of ``Help me, Dad.'' The suspect in Kate Steinle's murder had seven prior felony convictions and had been deported five times. Yet he was shielded--protected, in other words--by San Francisco's sanctuary policy.

The Kate Steinle story is not a singular case. Too many Americans have lost their lives, and too many families have had to feel the real and devastating impact caused by sanctuary cities and lax enforcement policies.

Our committee heard powerful testimony from families other than Kate Steinle's father. We heard from Mrs. Susan Oliver. She is the widow of Deputy Danny Oliver. This is the family. He was a police officer in Sacramento, CA. Danny was killed while on duty by an illegal immigrant who was previously arrested on two separate occasions for drug-related charges and twice deported. Mrs. Oliver spoke of the daily loss she experiences without her husband in everything from raising her children to the milestones he will miss, including their daughter's upcoming wedding.

We also heard from Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant Ronnebeck. You are seeing Grant's picture here. Grant was a 21-year-old convenience store clerk who was gunned down earlier this year by an undocumented immigrant. The Obama administration released Grant's alleged murderer, who was in removal proceedings. Grant was born in my State of Iowa but resided in Arizona. He had two brothers and a sister. Mr. Ronnebeck expressed his family's desire to see Grant's legacy be a force for change, imploring us as lawmakers to ``rise above political differences, to set aside personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, with the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in mind.'' Think of that tomorrow and think of the Ronnebeck family losing their son. They are asking us to keep the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in our minds.

We also heard from Brian McCann. Mr. McCann's brother, Dennis McCann, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County, IL, sanctuary city policies. Mr. McCann expressed his anger at the sanctuary city policies of Cook County, which allowed his brother's killer to be free, and at a system that failed to communicate with him and his family when the suspect was released by the locals.

We also heard from Laura Wilkerson of Pearland, TX, the mother of Josh Wilkerson. Josh was 18 years old when he was murdered by his high school classmate, an undocumented immigrant, after Josh offered him a ride home from school. Josh's murderer was sentenced to life in prison and will be eligible for parole in 30 years. Mrs. Wilkerson spoke of the gentle soul of her son, the brutal torture that he endured, and actually watching an unapologetic 19-year-old brag about his killing skills during trial and talking about how things were done in his country.

These stories are heartbreaking, but nothing has changed. I want to talk about what has happened since Kate's murder. We have seen more fall victim to sanctuary jurisdiction policies.

Shortly after Kate's death, Marilyn Pharis was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered in her home in Santa Maria, CA, by an undocumented immigrant who was released from custody because the county sheriff does not honor Federal enforcement detainers.

A 2-year-old girl was brutally beaten by an undocumented immigrant in San Luis Obispo County, CA. He was released from local custody despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer and an extensive criminal history, and he is still at large.

Margaret Kostelnik was killed by an undocumented immigrant who allegedly attempted to rape a 14-year-old girl and shoot a woman in a nearby park. He was released because Immigration and Customs Enforcement refused to issue a detainer and take custody of that suspect.

These are a very few of the stories that could be told on this Senate floor. There are many more families who are hurting today because of lax immigration policies and the lack of willingness by President Obama's administration to do something about sanctuary cities.

But don't take it from just me. Even the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledges that sanctuary cities are ``counterproductive to public safety.'' He said these policies were ``unacceptable.'' Yet this administration has not taken demonstrable action to address the unwillingness of sanctuary jurisdictions to work with Federal immigration authorities. More than 12,000 Federal detainer requests were ignored by State and local jurisdictions in 2014.

Moreover, in June of this year, the administration rolled out a new program that reduces the enforcement priorities and announced it would not seek the custody of many criminals who are in the country illegally. This is called the Priority Enforcement Program, PEP for short. That program actually gives sanctuary jurisdictions permission to continue ignoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. PEP even discourages compliant jurisdictions from further cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement because it now only issues detainers for individuals who are already convicted of certain crimes deemed priorities by the Department of Homeland Security.

Many local jurisdictions want to work with the Federal Government and protect their communities but are frustrated when the administration refuses to work with them. Think of Arizona trying to protect its own citizens from the crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in that State. The State legislature passes laws. The administration goes to court and gets those laws declared contrary to the Constitution or our only immigration laws. Why? Because under the Constitution, one of the 18 powers of Congress happens to be the enforcement or the writing of the immigration laws so they are uniform. So when this administration will not enforce immigration laws in Arizona, and Arizona decides under the Tenth Amendment, under the police powers of the State, to do it for the Federal Government, then it is wrong for that State to do it. But this administration will not take action against the sanctuary cities that are violating the same immigration laws.

I want to continue with some examples where the administration refuses to work with local officials. Sheriff Cummings in Cape Cod, MA, recently explained his frustration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an immigrant who had overstayed his visa was arrested for battery with a dangerous weapon and child pornography.

Sheriff Cummings said that when he learned that this individual who had a long criminal history was in the country illegally, he asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement for a Federal immigration detainer ``so that if someone came up with a bail we could then turn him over to ICE and we wouldn't release him back into the community.'' So then what happened? ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--never issued the detainer.

Sheriff Cummings noted that before PEP, immigration authorities would issue a detainer pretty quickly but not anymore. He commented:

It just shows how they've relaxed their policy so there are more criminal illegal aliens in our communities right now. Those are the ones I'm concerned with. I'm concerned with the individuals that have committed crimes. They are here illegally to begin with and they've committed crimes while they're here. To me it makes no sense to allow these people to stay in our communities.

I very much agree. It makes no sense that people who do not belong here and commit crimes are allowed to return to our communities and cause further harm.

Getting back to the bill we will be voting on tomorrow, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect America Act addresses the problem of sanctuary jurisdictions in a very commonsense and balanced way. There seems to be consensus that sanctuary jurisdictions should be held accountable, and we do that with the power of the purse. And now I am beginning to explain our bill.

This bill limits the availability of certain Federal grants to cities and States that have sanctuary policies. We limit funding through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. This is a grant program run by the Department of Justice that is designed to reimburse part of the cost incurred by local jurisdictions that detain undocumented criminal aliens. Sanctuary cities receive these funds despite their refusal to detain suspects who are wanted by immigration authorities.

In this year alone, California received a total of $44 million in these State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds even though the State has a sanctuary law. New York City, a sanctuary city, received $11.6 million in taxpayer funding. To fund sanctuary cities with State Criminal Alien Assistance Program money essentially subsidizes these jurisdictions for their lack of cooperation.

As Former Assistant Secretary Morton stated in a letter to Cook County, a well-known sanctuary city, ``It is fundamentally inconsistent for Cook County to request federal reimbursement for the cost of detaining aliens who commit or are charged with crimes while at the same time thwarting ICE's efforts to remove those very same aliens from the United States.''

The bill that will be before us tomorrow morning when we vote responds to this hypocrisy by making sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Another grant program limited to sanctuary jurisdictions is the community-oriented policing services or, as it is known around this town and locally, the COPS Program. These grant dollars help fund community-oriented policing programs for local law enforcement agencies. Our bill makes sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for these taxpayer dollars if they have a policy or practice in place despite the lack of any statute, ordinance, or policy directive from their unit of local government. Finally, the bill limits taxpayer dollars through the community development block grant for sanctuary jurisdictions when a county, city, or State has in effect a statute that clearly defies information sharing as required by Federal law or has a statute that prohibits any government official from complying with a detainer request issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Those are the funding parts of our bill.

In acknowledgement of the bill's fairness in targeting certain grants, the National Sheriffs' Association writes:

The grant penalties you would impose also acknowledge that our public safety entities should not be punished for the actions of a state or local subdivision over which they may not have control. I appreciate the careful consideration you clearly gave that issue.

The second part of the bill deals with lawsuits that local law enforcement people might be faced with, so the second thing our bill does is provide protection for law enforcement officers who do want to cooperate and comply with detainer requests from the Federal Government. It would address the liability issue created by recent court decisions by providing liability protection to local law enforcement who honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association explains in a letter of support for the bill:

Unfortunately, at least four courts have ruled that local law enforcement officers may be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment if they comply with an immigration detainer, even if the detainer was lawfully issued and the detention would have been legal if carried out by DHS. This means that our local counterparts are exposed to potential civil liability and it disables their ability to detain dangerous criminals scheduled for release. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act solves this problem by explicitly stating that local law enforcement officers have legal authority to comply with immigration detainers.

While preventing restrictive liability to law enforcement, the bill also ensures the protection of civil liberties and the rights of individuals. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association noted that ``the bill protects civil liberties, ensuring that someone who has had their constitutional rights violated may sue.''

Finally, the bill addresses criminals attempting to reenter the United States and habitual offenders of our immigration laws. The bill creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for any alien who is an aggravated felon or has been twice convicted of illegal reentry. Thanks to many people, including TV's Bill O'Reilly, for keeping this issue constantly before the people of this country. This part of the bill--named by Bill O'Reilly and commonly referred to as Kate's law--has become so important to many Americans. You can only imagine how important it is to the families of those who were killed by these murderers, the people whose pictures I had up here. This bill is very important to those families. Kate's Law is necessary in order to take those who are dangerous to our communities and have no respect for our law off our streets.

This bill has broad support from law enforcement groups. It also has the support of groups who want enforcement of our immigration laws. It has the support of the Remembrance Project, a group devoted to honoring and remembering Americans who have been killed by undocumented immigrants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source