Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from California to tell him that the law that sanctuary cities are violating is title 8, section 1373 of the United States Code, communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The failure to do that has resulted in 8,000 criminal aliens being released onto our streets just last year by sanctuary cities. Those 8,000 criminal aliens have since then already committed nearly 1,900 additional crimes. This is about not just San Francisco, but other States as well. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to both gentlemen from California. First, with regard to Mr. Becerra, the fact of the matter is that title 8 of the United States Code, section 1373, related to communication between government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service, is an important statute, and sanctuary cities violate that statute when they pass ordinances that prohibit-- prohibit--their law enforcement officers from communicating with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This yields situations like what occurred in San Francisco, because the sheriff there has a policy saying they could not communicate with the INS. Already, one San Francisco supervisor has called upon the city to change the policy so that they will communicate. This bill, which cuts off funds to cities that have provisions that contradict and violate the United States law does the same thing by a different route, and it will save many lives in the future if local law enforcement will communicate with the INS. Now, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), I just want to repeat again what I have said several times here.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we have only one additional speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman from North Carolina, this bill has everything to do with what happened in San Francisco. The tragic murder of Kate Steinle was because the city of San Francisco was not following the law and contacting the immigration service and doing things to make sure that he was deported. Instead, they released him back onto their streets. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the bill (H.R. 3009) to amend section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny assistance under such section to a State or political subdivision of a State that prohibits its officials from taking certain actions with respect to immigration, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam 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 materials on H.R. 3009, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say, yet again, nothing in this bill requires any officer to ask any question of any victims of crime about their immigration status. All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers not to communicate with ICE or to gather information status about individuals. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and commend Representative Hunter for introducing this legislation. It helps to address one of the main factors contributing to the collapse of immigration enforcement in the United States, ``sanctuary cities'' that prohibit their law enforcement officers from sharing information with Federal immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful and criminal aliens. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress realized that sanctuary cities were impeding the Federal Government from enforcing our immigration laws and jeopardizing the safety of our residents, immigrant and native-born alike. Legislation cowritten by former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith, prohibited States and localities from becoming sanctuaries for unlawful aliens. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ensures that jurisdictions cannot prohibit or restrict government officials from sending to or receiving from Federal immigration authorities information regarding the immigration status of any person. Unfortunately, despite the proliferation of sanctuary jurisdictions, the Justice Department has never initiated a prosecution for violation of the 1996 act. If the administration won't act, Congress must, and that is what Mr. Hunter's bill does. It withholds key Federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary jurisdictions that violate the 1996 act. Enactment of Representative Hunter's legislation will help persuade sanctuary jurisdictions to simply abide by current Federal law and, in doing so, advance public safety. Representative Hunter's bill is an important first step, but there is much more we will need to do to rebuild immigration enforcement in the United States. Once jurisdictions notify DHS of arrested unlawful and criminal aliens, it is crucial that they hold these aliens for transfer so that DHS can launch removal proceedings. The Center for Immigration Studies has revealed that, in the first 8 months of 2014, sanctuary cities refused to comply with DHS detainers for 8,145 aliens. After releasing these aliens, in only an 8-month period, 1,867 were arrested again for a criminal offense. Most recently, San Francisco's refusal to honor a DHS detainer resulted in the tragic death of Kathryn Steinle. This is why it is so important that jurisdictions honor DHS detainers. In fact, just this morning, we held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee where a representative from the Steinle family testified. The conclusion of the witnesses was that we need to make crystal clear that compliance with ICE detainers is mandatory; yet this administration openly proclaims that detainers can be ignored and has chosen to dramatically scale back their issuance. This administration has chosen to create enforcement-free zones for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens. It has turned the U.S. into a sanctuary Nation. That is the current reality. Despite DHS' pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens, in the last year, the number of administrative arrests by criminal aliens has fallen by a third. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to release thousands of criminal aliens onto our streets, 30,558 in 2014, of which another 1,423 have already been convicted of new crimes. There are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in removal proceedings living in our neighborhoods and almost 170,000 convicted aliens who have been ordered removed from the country also still living free and causing crimes on our streets. Under the Obama administration, the total number of convicted criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28 percent since 2012 to a total of nearly 350,000. We must prevent this or any other administration from being able to turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. Representative Gowdy, chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, has offered us a way forward to ensure enforcement of our immigration laws, despite the purposeful inaction of any administration. His legislation, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act, allows States and localities to enact and enforce immigration laws of their own, as long as they are consistent with Federal law. Jurisdictions could proactively take responsibility for protecting their communities and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. Today, we are making an important down payment on protecting our constituents, and I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to me that we will take additional action to ensure compliance with our immigration laws in the future. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. There is nothing in this bill that requires any officer to ask any question of any victims of crimes about their immigration status or to reveal that information to the INS. So I would urge folks to look at what this bill, very straightforward, simple bill says. Federal law governs immigration policy, and local governments shouldn't have hundreds of different immigration policies of their own. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say again, nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any victim of crimes about their immigration status. All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with ICE or to gather the information status of individuals. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He is quite right. This is very costly for the States. The State of Virginia has estimated a cost of over $16 billion to comply with the backstop requirements of the EPA. That is just one of the six States. Secondly, the EPA has been asked repeatedly, including in hearings conducted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in his subcommittee and at my request and the request of others, to do a cost-benefit analysis to show us that the multi-tens of billions of dollars that these six States will collectively spend will be reflected in improvements to the quality of the Chesapeake Bay. They have never provided that cost- benefit analysis. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman from Maryland, she also is quite right that tremendous progress has been made in improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay, but almost all of it prior to the President taking his pen and signing the executive order that contains this backstop language that we need to stop and return the power to the State and local governments. Sedimentation, phosphorus, and nitrogen are all down more than 40 percent--sedimentation more than 50 percent going into the Bay. The Bay is improving in its health because of the work done by the States. They should have the authority to do this without having the EPA hold a gun to their head. Mr. Chairman, that is why this amendment should be passed, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply prohibits the EPA from using the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load and the Watershed Implementation Plans to take over States' water quality strategies, protecting the 10th Amendment rights of States across the Nation from the heavy hand of the EPA. This amendment makes it clear that Congress intended for the Clean Water Act to be State led, not subject to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Over the last several years, the EPA has implemented a total maximum daily load plan for the Chesapeake Bay watershed which strictly limits the amount of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay. While a laudable goal and one I support in principle, through its implementation, the EPA has basically given every State in the watershed an ultimatum--either the State does exactly what the EPA says, or it faces the threat of an EPA takeover of their water quality programs. In some cases, the EPA will even rewrite the States' water quality plans if they disagree with the States' decisions. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that this amendment would not stop the EPA from working with the States to restore the Chesapeake Bay, nor would it in any way undermine the cleanup efforts already underway. I repeat, our amendment does not stop the TMDL or watershed implementation plans from moving forward, and it does not prevent the EPA from working cooperatively with the States to help restore the Chesapeake Bay. This amendment is very carefully crafted to address the 10th Amendment federalism issues that the EPA is encroaching upon and does not address the States' laudable goals of continuing to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The States should be able to use any resources the EPA may have available to help develop and implement a strategy to restore the Bay. This amendment only stops the ability of the EPA to step in and take over a State's plan--again, ensuring states' rights remain intact and not usurped by the EPA. Mr. Chairman, the Bay is a national treasure, and I want to see it restored. But we know that in order to achieve this goal, the States and the EPA must work together. The EPA cannot be allowed to railroad the States and micromanage the process. With this amendment, we are simply telling the EPA to respect the important role States play in implementing the Clean Water Act and help prevent another Federal power grab by the administration. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the pertinent subcommittee in the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it recently has come to my attention that the last vote I intended to cast during the vote series on May 12, 2015, was not recorded. I would have recorded my vote as Yes on H.R. 2146, the Defending Public Safety Employees Retirement Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway, for his leadership on yet another important issue for agriculture this week in the Congress. I rise in strong support of the Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015, which would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling for meat and bring the United States back into international trade compliance. I have always had concerns about mandatory country of origin labeling, and now the WTO's continued rulings against this practice, as well as Canada's and Mexico's threats to seek $3 billion in retaliatory tariffs, make the hard and fast case for repeal. For my home State of Virginia, it is estimated the potential economic impact of retaliation from Mexico and Canada could add up to tariffs of $331 million worth of exports on products like paper, aluminum, and bread. Mandatory COOL has failed and threatens our trade relationship with two of our strongest partners. Our markets, producers, and consumers cannot afford the cost of this failed policy. We will all benefit by its repeal. Mandatory COOL for meat has been debated for almost 15 years. Within 5 months of its 2009 implementation, Canada and Mexico challenged COOL at the WTO, arguing that it had trade-distorting impact by reducing the value of cattle and hogs shipped to the U.S. market. The WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico four times. Now that the U.S. has lost its final appeal, it is imperative that the Congress act quickly to avoid billions of dollars in retaliation. In the case of cattle, hogs, and chicken, it has proved to be a failed experiment, imposing significant costs on producers, packers, and consumers with no quantifiable benefit. United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack has stated the Department has no further options for administrative remedies. The issue has to be fixed legislatively through Congress, and this way of repeal is, by far, the best. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for their hard work on this, for coming to see me and others on our side of the aisle about this important issue, and for working with us on getting the language straight in this resolution in order to make sure that we are properly encouraging this exploration while also taking into account the issues that arise with the use of body cameras. I want to thank the ranking member and the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for their work on this as well. I also want to thank all of the staff involved. This is an important issue, and it will help to inform us as we move ahead on a number of issues related to criminal justice reform. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.