No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, rather than bring up an immigration bill that attempts to secure our border or address the broken immigration system, the Republican majority has brought us a bill that would simply bankrupt States and localities that have chosen a different path on immigration than the Republican agenda.

I am not surprised that this bill offers no solutions, though. Republicans have made it very clear that they are more interested in trying to scapegoat immigrants and score cheap political points, especially in these weeks leading up to the election, than in working to solve problems.

This legislation would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions--in some cases entire States, like New York, California, and North Dakota-- from receiving any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare. This bill is being rushed to the floor without following regular order. Given how poorly written this bill is, it is clear why its supporters might have wanted to shield it from greater scrutiny.

The title of the bill implies that it is narrowly crafted and targeted at Federal funds for undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions. In reality, however, its impact would be much, much wider. It would target not only States led by Democrats like New York, California, and Illinois, but Republican strongholds like Utah and North Dakota, and its impact would be felt across the country.

Let's think about how this bill would affect our communities. For example, local police protect the public. They do not check a person's immigration status when responding to a call for help or answering a 911 call. As a result, under this bill, State and local police forces will lose millions of dollars in Byrne JAG grants from the Department of Justice, one of the main ways that the Federal Government supports police equipment purchases, training, and officer salaries.

Likewise, States are required by law to provide students with a K-12 public education regardless of immigration status. As such, States receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education to fund K- 12 education. Under this bill, any so-called sanctuary jurisdiction would lose this funding for all its students, regardless of their immigration status.

One more example that highlights how truly absurd this bill is: Last year, the Federal Government provided the States of California and New York, both of which are considered sanctuary jurisdictions under this bill, with $5 billion and $2.3 billion respectively to build and maintain highways, bridges, and pedestrian infrastructure. This funding benefits all of the States' residents, including undocumented immigrants, which puts the funding at risk under this bill.

My Republican colleagues will argue that we are reading the bill too broadly, but we know this is exactly what Republicans want to do.

The Trump administration has previously tried to condition Department of Justice funding on States changing their sanctuary city policies. Further, this concept is straight out of Project 2025, which specifically calls on a potential future Trump administration to try to coerce States and localities into adopting anti-immigrant policies by withholding Federal funds.

Republicans used the term ``sanctuary city'' the same way that Donald Trump tells stories about immigrants eating cats and dogs. They want their constituents to be afraid of immigrants and to imply that some cities harbor criminals and refuse to comply with Federal law. The truth is, in some cities, gaining the trust of immigrant communities is a key component of good policing.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association argues that when local police are viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, they may spur ``increased crime against immigrants in the broader community, create a class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.'' Following this guidance, many cities across the country have adopted policies that limit contact between local police and Federal immigration agencies.

However, regardless of how someone may feel about sanctuary jurisdictions and community trust policies, the answer is not a blunt instrument that claws billions of dollars away from these States and localities. Our constituents send us here to fight for their interests, not to take away funds they depend on.

This is a dangerous and overly broad bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let's be real. The reason these migrants are in New York is because they were bused there involuntarily by Governor Abbott of Texas.

Mr. LaLota's bill would remove from New York all Federal funding for schools, all funding for transportation, because it says that in a sanctuary State or city, anything that may benefit migrants will not be paid. As I said in my opening remarks, roads benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for roads, bridges, and highways. Schools benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for the schools.

This bill would essentially take all Federal funding away from New York State. Why Mr. LaLota would introduce a bill to take basically all Federal funding away from our joint State of New York is a question his constituents are going to have to address in 2 months.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, once again, I point out that what everyone thinks of the Biden administration's immigration policies, the only effect of this bill would be to take all Federal funds away from States like New York, California, North Dakota, Utah.

Again, for Mr. Molinaro, who represents New York, he will have to explain to his constituents why he thinks all Federal funds should be taken away from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bowman).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, as we get closer to the end of our fiscal year with no resolution in sight, we are wasting our time with these absurd bills.

I know that Members of this Chamber have very mixed feelings about appropriations bills and the earmarks that go along with them, but only in this backwards Congress would Members think that stripping their constituents of Federal funding is good policy.

This legislation, which offers no solutions and would serve only to punish our communities, is opposed by law enforcement, organized labor, and civil and immigrant rights organizations.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. The underlying legislation is already dangerous and overly broad. It would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, in some cases entire States, from receiving any Federal funds that might benefit undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare.

To make matters worse, this amendment would force this bill into effect within 60 days of passage. So even if States and localities wanted to change their policies to comply with this bill, they likely would not be able to do so in time.

Many State legislatures are only in session for parts of the year. The legislature for my State of New York, for example, is only in session 6 months out of the year and does not convene again until January 2025.

There has been no consultation with the relevant agencies to determine if this short timeline is feasible, not only to determine every sanctuary jurisdiction, but also what funds and programs are impacted.

This amendment makes this dangerous bill even more absurd.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, again, this bill would take funds away not from illegal immigrants only; it would take funds away from everybody in many States and many cities. It would take virtually all funds for police; virtually all funds for highways, bridges, and roads; and virtually all funds for health and hospitals.

Most of the people who would suffer under this bill are American citizens.

The Republicans say: So what? They have made the choice to be a sanctuary space.

American citizens have this choice. They have the right to make decisions. That is what self-government is all about, and this bill comes along and says, let's take away the right of all of the people of New York, of California, of Utah, of North Dakota, and of Illinois to make decisions about their government. They are not really Americans. Let's take those rights away.

It is pernicious, and this amendment would say: Don't even give them the time to do it, and don't even give the Federal agencies the time to adjust their policies to do it.

This makes no sense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a debate over the Biden administration's immigration policy. That is a separate debate that is happening.

The fact of the matter is that this bill would take virtually all Federal funds away from many States and many cities in this country.

A sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds that the sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit, including the provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation of aliens who are present in the United States without lawful status.

Aliens present in the United States without lawful status use our roads and highways, so no road and highway money for all the people who are born who are here. Aliens who are here go to schools, so no funding for education. Aliens who are here go to hospitals when they are sick, so no funding for healthcare.

This makes no sense. This bill would take large amounts of money and virtually all Federal funds in fact away from many States in the Union.

Mr. Ogles says it would leave more money for Tennessee. I don't know whether that is true or not, but it would take virtually all Federal funds away from most States, and frankly as a Representative from New York which would lose all Federal funds, I wouldn't vote for a nickel for Tennessee in that case. That is because all Americans, whether in Tennessee or New York or Pennsylvania or Illinois, should be treated equally and not sacrificed on the altar of someone's opinion of immigration policy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees listing all the jurisdictions that failed to comply with a detainer request or inform the Department about the release of an individual. It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is about. This bill is intending to strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have ``sanctuary'' policies.

I think a report like this would be quite illuminating for Members across the aisle because it would show Republicans just how many of their own constituents are being harmed with their own legislation.

Communities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, just to name a few, would lose out on funding for central services, like public schools, infrastructure, and policing.

Yes, I think this report would help show exactly how damaging this legislation is, and, therefore, I do not oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source