Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697. Gang members and serious criminals should not be granted admission to the United States. That is not a controversial position. I think almost every Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, agrees with that. It is our highest priority to protect the safety of the American people. That is a duty I think we all take seriously, but this bill does something other than that.

The title of the bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, and, as we have seen in the past, there are times when the name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual proposed language of the statute, and that is true in this case.

First, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gang as ``an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more'' of a wide range of offenses. This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed.

These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member--for example, one of the offenses relates to the harboring of undocumented immigrants. This statute includes people who give shelter to, transport, or provide other kinds of aid to undocumented immigrants. That means that,

under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang.

This isn't just theoretical. During the 1980s, members of the faith community were repeatedly criminally prosecuted for providing transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one case, the FBI even infiltrated a Bible study group to learn about the group's plan to support undocumented immigrants. Under this bill, DHS would have expanded authority to go after all such groups as criminal gangs. In one fell swoop, it could turn nuns into gang members.

The bill also refers to felony drug offense, which would include the repeated possession of marijuana. In California, my State, along with several other States, voters decided to decriminalize marijuana--first, for medical uses, then later for broader uses. Under this bill, a group that regularly gets together to use marijuana that is legal under State law would still be committing a felony under Federal law and would be a criminal gang. That could include groups of people who are using marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat epilepsy or cancer who are taking marijuana consistent with State law.

Second, the bill authorizes DHS to deny admission or to deport any immigrant, including one who has no criminal history or gang affiliation whatsoever, so long as DHS merely believes the person is associated with such a group.

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill expressly authorize DHS officers and immigration judges to deport an immigrant on nothing more than a reason to believe that the individual has been a member of a gang or has participated in the activities of a gang as defined under these rather broad provisions. There is no need for conviction or even an arrest. All DHS needs is a belief that the individual has assisted any group of five or more people that DHS believes has committed one of these long list of offenses.

This belief could be as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, or the individuals in their family. This is not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Chairman Goodlatte had a self-actualizing amendment when the rule was adopted to change the evidentiary standard. I think it recognizes the problem with the bill.

The amendment really doesn't cure the problem with the breadth of the criminal gang definition, and it doesn't change the standard that applies to people seeking admission to the country, including those who are seeking to reunite with U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and children.

Just this week, I met with actual police officers who asked me to do what I could to defeat this unwise bill. They know, because they are out on the front lines, that gangs are a real problem, and they told me that bills like this, which could turn religious individuals, nuns, cancer victims into targets, is just going to get in their way as police officers.

If we want to keep America safe and admit immigrants who do not have a felony record, I would suggest that we consider the bipartisan Dream Act, H.R. 3440. This bill would provide a path to legal permanent residence for 800,000 young people who were raised in America, who consider this to be their home, who represent the very best of our country.

Instead of debating whether we should allow ICE officers to target religious workers, we should focus on what really makes this country great.

I would like to note that there has been much discussion about the drafting of this bill, and at the Rules Committee just last night, Republicans defended the bill by asserting that the broad provisions would not be abused by ICE officers. Even if they could target the nuns, they wouldn't do that. Even if they could target the cancer victims or the teenagers smoking marijuana after school as gang members, they wouldn't do that.

Now, I am not suggesting that the teenagers smoking marijuana after school is a good thing. But it is not MS-13. And that is what we are trying to make a distinction here between, a gang abatement bill and garden-variety activity that we may not like.

One really very good and very thoughtful Member on the other side of the aisle suggested that, if there is a problem with the bill, we will just come back and fix it. Here is why that is a problem: We know that when we draft something in a poor manner, it often goes on to be enforced and we never get around to fixing it.

I will give an example. We passed years ago, and I objected at the time--Henry Hyde was chairman of the committee--a provision that barred people from gaining status if they provided material support to terrorists.

Well, that sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean?

It turns out that material support--which was never qualified to include support given under duress or given in the ordinary course of a commercial activity--has now been used to bar people who are not terrorists, who didn't give material support.

I will give you an example. A group of women called the Tortilla Terrorists are women who were threatened with their lives and made tortillas because they were threatened with death by guerrilla actors. Now, they were denied asylum because of the tortillas, hence the name the Tortilla Terrorists.

I think most of us would agree that is not terrorism. Yet, we drafted the bill in such a way that the Department felt that they had to enforce it in that way, and we have never gone back to it.

So to think that somehow if we write a law poorly, it is going to be fixed in the administration, that is just wrong. We should step back from this. We should work together. This was just introduced last week.

Now, I know the SAFE Act had hearings years ago, but I think we would be better off if we sat down together, if we reasoned together, if we worked through the defects in this draft, and came up with a bill that really targeted MS-13 members, something that we could all support and that well-served our country.

I will just say that Sister Simone Campbell, one of the leading nuns in America, explained her opposition to this bill. She said:

The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so

sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter,

transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could

be found liable of criminal activity. This statute has been

used against religious workers in the past, and the bill

tries to make it a weapon for the future.

Let's listen to the nuns like we did in school, and step back, redraft this bill, and oppose this poorly crafted measure today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this bill was indeed part of the Davis-Oliver Act which did go through the Judiciary Committee. But that bill was over 200 pages long. It had many problems. It was impossible to address all the problems. We would be there for a month if we had gone through line by line. It was not a good process. If it had been perfect, I would note that Chairman Goodlatte would not have had to have his amendment to remove the reason-to-believe standard that was in the bill that was part of the Davis-Oliver Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an analysis entitled: ``Harboring: Overview of the Law,'' prepared by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

[From the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.]

Harboring: Overview of the Law

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits

individuals from concealing, shielding, or harboring

unauthorized individuals who come into and remain in the

United States. Under the law it is a criminal offense

punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who:

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien

has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in

violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from

detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from

detection, such alien in any place, including any building or

any means of transportation. INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8

U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the ``harboring

provision'' or ``Section 1324 (a)''].

The Harboring Prohibition Applies to Everyone

The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those

individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented

immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented

immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by

the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly

harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States

v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v.

Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 538

U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74

(2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d

1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d

1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063

(1978).

What Are the Elements of Harboring?

To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the

government must prove the following in most jurisdictions

``(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in

violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored,

or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the

defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien

entered or remained in the United States in violation of the

law, and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially

facilitate the alien remaining in the United States

illegally.'' Shum, 496 F.3d at 391-392 (quoting United States

v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F 3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert

denied, 546 U.S. 1097 (2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit has rejected the fourth element asserting

that the phrase ``conduct tending substantially to

facilitate'' is a judicial addition to the statute that is

unnecessary for a conviction because the statute requires no

specific degree of assistance. United States v. Xiang Hui Ye,

588 F.3d 411, 415-416 (7th Cir. 2009).

What Actions Constitute Harboring?

Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish

the ``harboring'' of undocumented individuals, it never

defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes

``harboring'' has been left to the courts. As shown below,

the federal courts have not settled on one uniform

definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have

adopted their own definition of ``harboring.''

Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an

immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally and that prevents

the authorities from detecting the individual's unlawful

presence (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing

shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false

documentation, or warnings about impending investigations

that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in

the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit)

Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an

immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally (U.S. Courts of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors,

and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known

undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to

stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him.

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented

individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)

Explanation of Harboring Through Case Law

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

In the influential case, United States v. Lopez, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went through the

legislative history of the harboring provision and stated

that the term harbor ``was intended to encompass conduct

tending substantially to facilitate an alien's `remaining in

the United States illegally,' provided that the person

charged has knowledge of the immigrant's unlawful status.''

521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995

(1975).

In this case, Mr. Lopez owned at least six homes in Nassau

County, New York, where he operated safe havens for

undocumented individuals. Mr. Lopez knew that the people

staying in his homes were undocumented. Each person paid Mr.

Lopez $15 per week to live in his houses. In many cases,

people received the address for a particular house before

they left their home countries, and, upon crossing the border

illegally, they proceeded directly to the house. Mr. Lopez

also helped these individuals obtain jobs by completing work

applications and transporting them to and from work. He

arranged sham marriages for many so that they could appear to

be in the U.S. in lawful status. With a warrant, immigration

authorities searched six of Lopez's homes and found twenty-

seven undocumented individuals. He was charged with harboring

illegal immigrants.

Mr. Lopez argued that the mere providing of shelter to

undocumented immigrants does not constitute harboring. Id. at

439. He argued that to constitute harboring the conduct must

be part of the process of smuggling immigrants into the U.S.

or facilitating the immigrants' illegal entry into the U.S.

Id. The circuit court noted that he essentially argued that

to constitute harboring the sheltering would have to be

provided either clandestinely or for the purposes of

sheltering the immigrants from the authorities. Id.

The Second Circuit rejected these arguments. It held that

the statute criminalizes conduct that tends substantially to

facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States

illegally. Id. at 441. The circuit court found that Mr.

Lopez's conduct did just that. It pointed out that Mr. Lopez

had a large number of undocumented immigrants living at his

houses; they obtained the addresses and, upon entering the

U.S., proceeded to those houses; Mr. Lopez provided

transportation for them to and from work; and, he helped

arrange sham marriages. Id. The Second Circuit did not

require that Mr. Lopez provide the shelter clandestinely nor

that he shield the illegal immigrants from detection by

immigration authorities Id.

The case of United States v. Kim also is instructive on the

meaning of harboring. 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cu 1999). It states

that harboring within the meaning of Section 1324(a)

``encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an

alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent

government authorities from detecting [the immigrant's]

unlawful presence.'' Id. at 574. In this case, Mr. Myung Ho

Kim owned and operated a garment-manufacturing business

called ``Sewing Masters'' in New York City. He employed a

number of undocumented workers, including Nancy Fanfar.

During the course of her employment, Mr. Kim instructed Ms.

Fanfar to bring in new papers with a different name that

would indicate that she had work authorization. He instructed

Ms. Fanfar to change her name and remain in his employ a

second time, even while he was being investigated by

immigration authorities.

According to the circuit court, Mr. Kim's actions

constituted harboring, for they were designed to help Ms.

Fanfar remain in his employ and to prevent her continued

presence from being detected by the authorities. Thus, his

conduct substantially facilitated her ability to remain in

the U.S. illegally in prohibition of the harboring provision.

Id. at 574-575.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit also has considered what conduct

constitutes ``shielding,'' ``harboring,'' and ``concealing''

within the meaning of Section 1324(a). Like the Second

Circuit, it determined that these terms encompass conduct

``tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in

the U.S. illegally'' and [that] prevent[s] government

authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence.

``U.S. v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008); see also

Delno-Mocci v. Connolly Props, 672 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir.

2012), U.S. v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir.

2009); U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1003 (3d Cir. 2008).

In United States v. Ozcelik, the defendant knew that the

individual remained in the U.S. illegally and advised him to

``lay low'' and ``stay away'' from the address he had on file

with the government. 527 F.3d at 100. However, Mr. Ozcelik

did not actively attempt to intervene or delay an impending

immigration investigation and the Third Circuit held that

advising an individual without legal status to stay out of

trouble and to keep a low profile does not tend substantially

to facilitate their remaining in the country. Id. at 100-01.

The circuit court reasserted that shielding or harboring a

person without status ordinarily includes affirmative conduct

such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about

how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about

impending investigations that facilitates a person's

continuing illegal presence in the United States. See Id. at

99.

In United States v. Silveus, the Third Circuit held that

cohabitation, along with reasonable control of premises

during an immigration agent's inquiry regarding the

whereabouts of the suspected undocumented individual, does

not constitute harboring without sufficient evidence that a

defendant's conduct substantially facilitated the

individual's remaining in the U.S. illegally and prevented

authorities from detecting his/her unlawful presence. 542

F.3d at 1002-04. In this case, the agent never saw the

suspected undocumented individual, but only heard the

apartment door slam, heard some bushes break, and as he

approached, saw the defendant shut her front door. Id. at

1002. The defendant spoke to the agent through her window and

when asked if anybody had run out of her apartment, she said

``I don't know.'' Id. at 1003. The circuit court determined

that the act of shutting a door as an agent rounded the

corner and her subsequent reply to the agent's question did

not establish ``harboring'' under Section 1324(a) because it

only led to speculation as to the suspect's presence. Id. at

1004.

In United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, the Third Circuit

reaffirmed that shielding an undocumented person includes

affirmative conduct (such as providing shelter,

transportation, direction about how to obtain false

documents, or warnings about impending investigations) that

facilitates the person's continuing illegal presence in the

U.S. 572 F.3d at 122. The circuit court held that the

defendant's actions (taking undocumented people from the U.S.

to the Dominican Republic in his private plane) were

undertaken for the purpose of removing them from the U.S.,

not helping them remain in the U.S. Id. It noted that the

goal of Section 1324 is to prevent undocumented individuals

from entering or remaining illegally in the U.S. by punishing

those that shield or harbor. Id. It asserted that punishing a

defendant for helping individuals without legal status leave

the U.S. would be contrary to that goal. Id.

More recently, the Third Circuit reiterated that

``harboring'' requires some act that obstructs the

government's ability to discover the undocumented person and

that it is highly unlikely that landlords renting apartments

to people lacking lawful status could, without more, satisfy

the court's definition of harboring. Delrio-Mocci, 672 F.3d

at 246 (citing Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223

(3d Cir 2010)). The circuit court reiterated that ``[r]enting

an apartment in the normal course of business is not in and

of itself conduct that prevents the government from detecting

an alien's presence.'' Id.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit's definition of harboring is broader than

the Second and Third Circuits. It rejects the notion that to

be convicted of harboring a defendant's conduct must be part

of a smuggling operation or involve actions that hide

immigrants from law enforcement authorities. See De Jesus-

Batres, 410 F.3d at 162 (specific intent is not an element of

the offense of harboring). An early Fifth Circuit decision,

U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977), remains

informative.

In Cantu, immigration agents visited the restaurant owned

by Mr. Cantu because they received information that he was

employing undocumented workers. The agents wanted to question

the employees. Mr. Cantu refused admission to his restaurant

until they could provide a warrant.

While the immigration authorities waited outside for the

warrant, Mr. Cantu made arrangements with at least two of his

patrons to drive some of his undocumented employees into

town. Mr. Cantu also arranged for his employees to sit in the

restaurant and then leave the restaurant like customers. As

the employees left the restaurant, the immigration agents

approached them and questioned them about their immigration

status. The agents determined their illegal status and

arrested them.

Mr. Cantu argued that, because he did not instruct his

employees to ``hide,'' and because the employees left the

restaurant in full view of the officers, he could not be

charged with shielding immigrants from detection. He also

argued that his actions were not connected to any smuggling

activity. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Second Circuit's

Lopez decision, rejected these arguments, and determined that

Mr. Cantu's actions--instructing the employees to act like

customers so they could evade arrest--tended to facilitate

the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally. Id. at 1180.

In another Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Varkonyi,

645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981), the court cited to Lopez to

assert that the harboring statute prohibits ``any conduct

which tends to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining

in the U.S. illegally.'' Id. at 459. Mr. Varkonyi provided a

group of undocumented immigrants with steady employment at

his scrap metal yard six days a week as well as lodging at

his warehouse. On previous occasions, he had instructed and

aided the men in avoiding detection and apprehension. On the

day of their detention, Mr. Varkonyi interfered with Customs

and Border Protection agents' actions by forcibly denying

them entry to his property through physical force.

Here, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct

went well beyond mere employment and thus constituted

harboring. Id. at 459. In this case, the court pointed out

that Mr. Varkonyi knew of the immigrants' undocumented

status, he had instructed the immigrants on avoiding

detection on a prior occasion; he was providing the

immigrants with employment and lodging, he interfered with

immigration agents to protect the immigrants from

apprehension; and he was partly responsible for the escape of

one of the immigrants from custody. Id. Given these facts,

the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct, both

before and after the detention of the immigrants, was

calculated to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S.

unlawfully. Id. at 460.

In 2007, the Fifth Circuit ruled in another employment

harboring case that ``substantially facilitate'' means to

make an individual's illegal presence in the United States

substantially ``easier or less difficult.'' United States v.

Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and

quotation marks omitted). The court noted that Section

1324(a) was enacted to deter employers from hiring

unauthorized individuals and it refused to adopt a narrow

definition of ``substantially facilitate'' that undermines

Congress's purpose. Id.

In this case, Mr. Shum was vice-president of an office-

cleaning company and he employed janitors without legal

status. According to witnesses, he provided false

identifications to the workers to facilitate background

checks so that the workers could clean government office

buildings.

In this legal analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., it does point out that religious persons have been prosecuted and convicted for providing sanctuary. Opinions may differ on whether that is a good idea or bad idea, but to say that that is an MS-13 activity, I think we would all agree that is just crazy. That is what this bill would do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a freshman Member of the House whom we are so fortunate to have. Just last year, as the chief of police, she was on the front line in the fight against gangs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of closing comments on this bill.

I think it is a given that every Member of this body wants to do something about gangs. I have gangs in my district. I think I heard Mr. King speak so passionately about the problem in his district. It is a pervasive problem.

The concern is that this bill goes far beyond targeting those gangs. That is why we, with great reluctance, have to say we can't do this. We can't do this.

If we wanted to target just the gangs, we wouldn't have included language that would allow charging people who are not gang members as gang members. We wouldn't have included provisions that the victims of gangs would be denied asylum. Section 2(f) of the bill denies individuals who are suspected of alleged gang membership the opportunity to apply for asylum.

Here is the problem. In certain parts of Central America, you have rampant gang activity. Women and girls are terribly abused. They are beaten, turned into sex slaves, tattooed, and they escape. If that young girl who has been the victim of that violence from gangs comes with the tattoos, the brand that that gang put on her, and if she, as a consequence, is reasonably suspected of being a member of the gang, she can't get asylum. That is not what we want in the fight against MS-13.

The bill is not drafted adequately.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It has been mentioned that there are terrible activities being undertaken by gang members. I don't think there is any dispute in this body about that. Our obligation is to craft bills that will allow for remedies for that problem in a specific, targeted, and effective way. I think this bill falls far short in that regard.

We had mentioned earlier the great concern that has been expressed to us by religious people across the United States about the provisions relative to harboring. Five nuns on a religious worker visa who help provide sanctuary for an undocumented person is a gang under this bill. They are not MS-13.

We could craft a measure that avoids that outcome while still going after MS-13. We didn't do that. For one thing, we didn't actually sit down, both sides of the aisle, to work together, to reason together, to make that happen.

I would like to note that the smuggling issue is a big problem. We have unanimous agreement on the smuggling issue. We have worked together, actually, with the Wilberforce Act and other acts in a bipartisan way to deal with that. But we didn't bifurcate smuggling from harboring in this bill. That is why the nuns and the Catholic bishops have contacted us asking us not to support this bill.

I would like to note, just finally, that the first obligation that we have is to keep America safe. We fail to do that if we craft language that really is just part of a broad deportation agenda under the guise of an antigang bill. There is great concern that is what has happened here.

One of the elements that is referenced as a predicate for gang activity--the five people who are working together--is that documents are false. A lot of people are highly agitated when undocumented people have false documents. Opinions differ. Almost every undocumented person in the United States who works has a fake ID; otherwise, they can't get a job.

You can agree with that, you can think it is terrible, you can think it is maybe not so terrible. I think most of us would agree it is not MS-13. Why would we craft this in such a way to treat that activity as an MS-13 activity and to blow up all the procedures we have in place to make sure that justice is done?

I hope that Members will vote against this bill. Despite the name, it goes far beyond attacking gangs. It would drift into allowing for the deportation of religious people and others who have done nothing related to gang activity.

I hope that, if this bill is defeated, we can sit down, as we often have on various items and worked collaboratively on patent reform and other issues, and do the same on this. I hope, if this bill is defeated, we will take the opportunity to do that.

I, for one, pledge my best efforts to come up with a measure that is targeted and effective. This bill, unfortunately, is not.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my friend from Georgia with reference to the ongoing recovery period that we are experiencing in region four, and I especially offer compliments to the Federal family of agencies that have been on the ground working in all of our region.

Like my friend from Georgia, my home is without power, and we urge patience. The authorities are working with the utility companies and they really do have a lot of people on the ground, and it is expected that they will be able to restore power and we will be able to take the long-range view with reference to recovery.

Certainly, we want to thank the first responders. The local authorities have been on their game at their best, as well as the National Oceanic Weather Service that has supplied a lot of information to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. Today's rule brings the number of closed rules for the 115th Congress to 42. In other words, more than 50 percent of the legislation coming out of the Rules Committee has been closed off from open and honest debate; closed off by my Republican friends.

At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican colleagues and the Speaker that they would run the government and, more particularly, the people's House in an open and transparent manner. They even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been jettisoned in favor of an overtly partisan approach to governing that is indeed unfortunate.

By way of example, the bill we are discussing today was introduced last Thursday, brought to the Rules Committee last night, and is now going to be put before the House for a vote without the committee of jurisdiction holding one hearing on the bill or Members having the opportunity to offer their amendments, which is too bad, because this bill is really in desperate need of help.

During our debate last night, one of my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee posed three hypothetical situations and asked: If this bill were to become law, what effect the bill would have in those instances?

Not surprisingly, the answers we got were confusing, convoluted, and contradictory. Now we find ourselves here today asking the entire membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if this bill were to become law.

Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with this bill can't get much worse.

Mr. Speaker, challenged by their party's leader, Donald John Trump, to fix DACA, House leadership, instead, brings this bill to the floor, a bill that does nothing but peddle in the politics of fear, a bill that purports to make communities safer, when all it does is serve red meat to the Republican base and foment xenophobia.

Everyone in this House, everyone in this Nation, can agree that confronting and defeating the perpetrators of gang violence is a good and worthy goal. In fact, we already have laws on the books that do just that. We already have task forces on gangs in virtually all of our communities.

This bill, on the other hand, will not make our communities safer. It will, however, undermine the rule of law in this country by betraying our commitment to the Constitution's guarantee of due process. The bill is also glaringly pretextual in its approach and overbroad in its effect so that it can be seen as nothing other than yet another move to implement Donald John Trump's promise to the Republican base to engage in mass deportation of immigrant communities across our country.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our immigration system is in dire need of attention. It is also clear that we should approach our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans and compassionate toward those who have fled unbelievable violence and are seeking a better life here in the United States.

We should be proud that we remain--despite the anti-immigrant rhetoric emanating from the White House--a beacon of hope for freedom- loving people around the world, and we should remain welcoming upon their arrival.

This, however, is not the tack taken by many of my Republican friends, and is certainly not the path taken by House leadership with today's bill.

As evidence of their approach, we need only to look at the despair the Republican Party has cast upon the 800,000 DREAMers who live in this country. Instead of finally making permanent the status of DREAMers in this country as full citizens, the first act the Republican majority takes after Donald John Trump tweeted that he would end DACA, then tweeted that he would revisit the issue in 6 months, the first thing that they did was to present a bill that is so broadly drafted that a group of five or more nuns could constitute a criminal gang in the eyes of the law.

Indeed, the bill's harboring provisions under section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act are, as Sister Simone Campbell said, ``so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. The Federal courts have found that `harboring' includes offering a known undocumented individual a place to stay.''

Sister Simone concluded with this salient point: ``This statute has been used against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to make it a weapon for the future.''

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short years ago that the Grand Old Party, in the wake of their electoral loss to President Barack Obama in 2012, issued their autopsy of what went wrong. That report concluded that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanic Americans.

Yet, instead of heeding their own advice, President Donald John Trump called Mexican Americans murderers and rapists on the very first day of his campaign. From that dark point on, Hispanic Americans have had to watch one of the two major political parties in their country descend further and further into the abyss of xenophobia.

Democrats stand ready to have a serious conversation about comprehensive immigration reform and border security, and I urge my Republican friends to put the red meat aside for the moment and work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, a clear-eyed thinker on this subject, and has been the same for a protracted period of time. Few in this body can rival her abilities on this particular subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) to discuss our proposal. My good friend is the distinguished vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements in opposition to H.R. 3697 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2017.

Re vote ``no'' on H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member

Removal Act''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and

supporters, we urge members of the House to oppose H.R. 3697

which is expected to be brought up for a floor vote as early

as Thursday, September 14.

The American Civil Liberties Union recommends a NO vote on

this bill because it will promote widespread racial

profiling, violate First Amendment protections, expand

mandatory detention of immigrants, raise serious

constitutional questions on judicial review of government

designations of certain groups, and bar humanitarian relief

for individuals in violation of international treaties.

H.R. 3697 will promote widespread racial profiling, risking

violation of individuals' Fifth Amendment equal protection

rights.

H.R. 3697 will empower the immigration authorities to

conduct dragnet sweeps of Latino communities and other

communities of color. Media reports make clear that law

enforcement has recently relied on questionable and

unreliable evidence to assert that Latino individuals are

gang members, including wearing certain kinds of clothes or

doodling an area code from a Latin American country on a

school notebook. Officers have alleged gang membership

sometimes based on merely being seen with people who are

alleged gang members or living in neighborhoods known to

suffer gang activity. This bill gives DHS the latitude to

arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens including long-time

green card holders for the ``crime'' of living in an

immigrant neighborhood or showing pride in their countries of

origin.

Gang databases information-sharing arrangements between

local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities are

flawed, inaccurate, encourage biased policing, and have been

repeatedly shown to be unreliable. Gang databases have

extremely low thresholds for inclusion: simply living in a

neighborhood where there are gang members or talking to

people who are gang members often results in a young person

being placed in a gang database. An audit of California's

gang database CalGangs found that law enforcement could not

substantiate a significant proportion of their entries into

the gang database. Reliance on gang databases will only

further encourage racial profiling of young men of color

living in poor neighborhoods.

H.R. 3697 seeks to deport immigrants based on a mere

``reason to believe'' that they have been involved in gang

activities. This overly broad designation could sweep up

individuals who have not engaged in criminal activity.

Indeed, in many cases, H.R. 3697 could make immigrants

deportable for activities protected by the First Amendment.

H.R. 3697 subjects an individual to deportation if the

Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General ``knows or

has reason to believe'' that an individual is a gang member.

A person is also subject to deportation, if, the individual

has ``participated in the activities'' of the ``gang''

knowing or having reason to know that their activities will

``promote, further, aid or support'' the illegal activity.

This expansive language could sweep up people who have

committed no criminal activity whatsoever.

Even worse, H.R. 3697 risks making people deportable for

activities that are constitutionally protected under the

First Amendment.

``Reason to believe'' is an exceedingly low standard of

proof that will subject people to deportation based on mere

probable cause of gang involvement. This is especially

troubling given the lack of strict rules of evidence in

immigration court, where individuals may be deemed gang

members based on hearsay.

H.R. 3697 includes no exception for offenses committed as a

juvenile. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the broad

legal consensus that juveniles should be held to different

standards of culpability.

H.R. 3697 also includes no exception for having

``participated in the activities of a gang under duress,

which is a well-recognized defense against criminal conduct.

Many vulnerable individuals may have ``participated in the

activities'' of a gang under coercion, including for fear of

their lives or those of their family members. It raises

serious due process concerns to subject individuals to

removability based on such conduct.

H.R. 3697 grants the Department of Homeland Security

massive discretion to designate a group as a ``criminal

gang'', based on secret evidence, and without meaningful

judicial review, which raises serious constitutional

questions.

H.R. 3697 creates a vague and overbroad definition of a

``criminal gang'' that sweeps in lawful and constitutionally

protected conduct.

H.R. 3697 grants the Secretary of Homeland extraordinarily

broad discretion to designate a group a ``criminal gang'',

based on ``classified'' or ex parte evidence that the

designated individuals may not access, even in a court

challenge. The Government's ability to rely on secret

evidence to make and defend the gang designation raises

serious due process concerns.

H.R. 3697 also bars individuals from ``rais[ing] any

question concerning the validity of [a gang designation]'' in

their own removal proceedings.

H.R. 3697 provides little to no opportunity to challenge

for those unjustly subject to a gang designation. A group

cannot petition for revocation for two years after the

designation, during which time alleged members cannot

challenge the validity of that designation in removal

proceedings--thereby punishing and deporting individuals over

facts they cannot challenge. Similarly, groups have 30 days

to file a legal challenge to the designation in court, but

that judicial review cannot prevent other pieces of the act

from moving forward, such as removal proceedings, until there

is a final order from the

court. Whether petitioning for revocation or challenging a

designation in court, this act has the effect of punishing

and removing individuals without providing sufficient options

for recourse or redress.

H.R. 3697 bars important forms of humanitarian relief for

individuals fleeing persecution and children facing

situations of abuse, which violates U.S. treaty obligations

and raises serious constitutional concerns.

At the same time, H.R. 3697 bars individuals accused of

gang involvement from asylum and withholding of removal, thus

stripping individuals fleeing persecution--including

potentially thousands of individuals fleeing gang violence in

Central America--from refuge in the United States. H.R. 3697

thus violates U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention

and the international law prohibition of nonrefoulement, or

the return of individuals to situations where they will face

persecution or torture.

H.R. 3697 would also strip children accused of gang

involvement of eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile

Status (SIJS), which provides immigration relief to children

facing abuse and neglect. To deport these children would be

cruel and irrational when many of the children applying for

SIJS have come to the U.S. to flee gang violence in Central

America.

H.R. 3697 irrationally strips individuals of Temporary

Protected Status (TPS) which is an important humanitarian

protection for noncitizens.

H.R. 3697 expands the scope of mandatory detention, in

violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

H.R. 3697 would require the mandatory detention of

immigrants accused of gang involvement, without the basic due

process of a bond hearing to determine if the person even

needs to be locked up in the first place.

H.R. 3697 would impose mandatory detention on individuals

who seek asylum at a port-of-entry--many of whom are fleeing

gang violence in Central America--by eliminating parole for

asylum seekers accused of gang ties.

The detention provisions raise serious due process

concerns. As the Supreme Court has held, ``[i]n our society,

liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without

trial is the carefully limited exception.'' Although the

Supreme Court has upheld limited periods of mandatory

immigration detention where Congress found certain categories

of noncitizens to pose a heightened flight risk or risk to

public safety, H.R. 3697 sweeps far beyond what is

constitutionally permissible.

Separate from any relationship with gang affiliation, the

TPS-specific provisions of the legislation revise the statute

to allow the government to detain noncitizens with TPS

``whenever appropriate under any provision of law.'' This

potentially raises the specter that noncitizens who have been

granted protection by our government could languish in

detention for prolonged periods of time, in violation of due

process.

The detention provisions are a massive waste of taxpayer

dollars. The immigration authorities already have full

authority to detain any individual pending a removal

proceeding. Individuals remain in detention unless they meet

their burden of proving, either to an immigration judge at a

bond hearing or to an ICE office make a parole determination,

that they pose no flight risk or danger to the community.

For the above reasons the ACLU urges a NO vote on H.R.

3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act.''

Regards,

Faiz Shakir,

Director, Washington Legislative Office.

Lorella Praeli,

Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle is a multitalented person. In addition to his curriculum vitae, he carries with him the mantle of being a man of the cloth. I know he knows Matthew 25:35. It is oft quoted, and we do well to remember it. Among the things that are said in that verse are: ``For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.'' This sentiment must be our guiding principle, our North Star, as we work to repair our broken immigration system.

Today's bill is in total opposition to this sentiment as it works to demonize, with one broad, careless, and probably unconstitutional stroke, an entire group of people, the vast majority of whom simply wish to find refuge from immense hardship in their country of origin.

My Republican friends should take yet another in a long line of legislative mulligans on this bill and come to the table ready to work in a sensible way to fix our immigration system. I would suggest they could start by bringing the DREAM Act to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is as much a criminal injustice bill as it is immigration. Serving as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, I am both a believer in the dangers of MS-13 as many of my colleagues are. I offer concern and recognition of their violence.

That is why this bill should be defeated because something as crucial as this does not need to be litigated in the courts. You make a bill with such insufferable frailties constitutionally without bipartisanship, without any hearings, and without the ability to set a legal standard of what is the definition or the understanding of a criminal gang.

This is done in consultation with the Attorney General, who is an opponent of any form of immigration, legal or undocumented, consulting with the Homeland Security Secretary of which I am a member of that committee, and the dominant factor will be the Attorney General talking to the Homeland Security Secretary about criminal elements. Who do you think will prevail? How many will be swept up in this expansive, nonorganized, nonorderly, and non-due process legislation?

The frailties of this bill are the very number, if you will, five. Five persons can be called a criminal gang. Mothers and fathers, listen: innocent behavior of young people tattooed or having friends could be called a criminal gang. Yes, individuals who have status could be deported, an ongoing group, club, organizations, or associations. They have expanded this, maybe high school kids who may gather to smoke marijuana. Maybe this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants.

All we are asking is let us work together to get a bill that fights MS-13, not fights innocent people. The bill defines criminal gang, a group that has been designated as a criminal gang, as I said, by the DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General. It is unwise and irresponsible to not have the kind of organized framework.

That happens from not having committee hearings and markups. It happens when you don't engage police officers in a wide breadth from many different aspects.

I am disappointed that this bill did not have the opportunity to have the

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations have input, and that would have been done if we had a full hearing or a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, or a hearing in the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, or a hearing in the full committee as I mentioned.

It lacks a constitutional construct. It begins to criminalize for associations. We are heading down a terribly unsophisticated road. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's recent report, nationally, 48,000 juvenile offenders were held in residential facilities. We don't need to add more, but here is the outcome: they are not just held, they are deported.

Again, I emphasize to my colleagues that the ages could be very young because there are no firewalls dealing with the ages that might be swept up in this wide sweep of those who deserve to be responded to in a way that is not this bill. This bill pretends to be wrapping up and rounding up bad actors that are undocumented immigrants. That is the big calling card. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``Fact check: Immigration doesn't bring crime into U.S.,'' by PBS NewsHour.

[From the PBS Newshour, Feb. 3, 2017]

Fact Check: Immigration Doesn't Bring Crime Into U.S. Data Say

(By The Conversation)

Editor's note: In his first week in office, President

Donald Trump showed he intends to follow through on his

immigration promises. A major focus of his campaign was on

removing immigrants who, he said, were increasing crime in

American communities.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National

Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by

undocumented immigrants and said:

``They are being released by the tens of thousands into our

communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or

resources . . . We are going to build a great border wall to

stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence,

and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.''

Now as president, he has signed executive orders that

restrict entry of immigrants from seven countries into the

U.S. and authorize the construction of a wall along the U.S.

border with Mexico. He also signed an order to prioritize the

removal of ``criminal aliens'' and withhold federal funding

from ``sanctuary cities.''

But, what does research say about how immigration impacts

crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for

answers.

Across 200 metropolitan areas

(By Robert Adelman, University at Buffalo, and Lesley Reid, University

of Alabama)

Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring

assumption that increases in immigration are associated with

increases in crime.

Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has

widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early

20th-century presidential commissions that found no backing

for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are

always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates

that immigrants commit fewer crimes, on average, than native-

born Americans.

Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations

have lower crime rates, on average, than those with minimal

immigrant populations.

In a paper published this year in the Journal of Ethnicity

in Criminal Justice, we, along with our colleagues Gail

Markle, Saskia Weiss and Charles Jaret, investigated the

immigration-crime relationship.

We analyzed census data spanning four decades from 1970 to

2010 for 200 randomly selected metropolitan areas, which

include center cities and surrounding suburbs. Examining data

over time allowed us to assess whether the relationship

between immigration and crime changed with the broader U.S.

economy and the origin and number of immigrants.

The most striking finding from our research is that for

murder, robbery, burglary and larceny, as immigration

increased, crime decreased, on average, in American

metropolitan areas. The only crime that immigration had no

impact on was aggravated assault. These associations are

strong and stable evidence that immigration does not cause

crime to increase in U.S. metropolitan areas, and may even

help reduce it.

There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why

more immigration leads to less crime. The most common

explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by

revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant

communities and generating economic growth.

Across 20 years of data

(By Charis E. Kubrin, University of California, Irvine, and Graham

Ousey, College of William and Mary)

For the last decade, we have been studying how immigration

to an area impacts crime.

Across our studies, one finding remains clear: Cities and

neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have

lower rates of crime and violence, all else being equal.

Our research also points to the importance of city context

for understanding the immigration-crime relationship. In one

study, for example, we found that cities with historically

high immigration levels are especially likely to enjoy

reduced crime rates as a result of their immigrant

populations.

Findings from our most recent study, forthcoming in the

inaugural issue of The Annual Review of Criminology, only

strengthen these conclusions.

We conducted a meta-analysis, meaning we systematically

evaluated available research on the immigration-crime

relationship in neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas

across the U.S. We examined findings from more than 50

studies published between 1994 and 2014, including studies

conducted by our copanelists, Adelman and Reid.

Our analysis of the literature reveals that immigration has

a weak crime-suppressing effect. In other words, more

immigration equals less crime.

There were some individual studies that found that with an

increase in immigration, there was an increase in crime.

However, there were 2.5 times as many findings that showed

immigration was actually correlated with less crime. And, the

most common finding was that immigration had no impact on

crime.

The upshot? We find no evidence to indicate that

immigration leads to more crime and it may, in fact, suppress

it.

Mr. Speaker, opposing this, in particular, I would like to add this letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a letter from the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2017.

Oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act''

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, I am writing to express our

opposition to H.R. 3697, which creates new, sweeping grounds

for barring entry to or deporting immigrants based on the

mere suspicion of gang affiliation. We oppose H.R. 3697 for

the following reasons:

It would subject people who have never committed a crime to

deportation, creating a new definition of ``criminal gang''

that is unworkably vague and could cover a wide range of

organizations ranging from churches to fraternities to

political groups. It shifts the burden to individuals to

prove they did not know they were affiliated with a gang that

committed qualifying offenses, even though proving such a

negative is often impossible.

It would expand the use of mandatory, no-bond detention to

people facing removal under the bill, even if they have not

been convicted of any criminal offenses.

Deportations based on suspected gang membership or

affiliation would likely rely on flawed gang databases, which

are rife with inconsistent definitions, improper

documentation procedures, and inadequate safeguards.

Creating a new ground of deportability for suspected gang

members is also unnecessary, because the government already

has enough tools and resources to deport such individuals.

Most states and the federal government also have laws that

punish or enhance sentences for individuals suspected of

being gang members, recruiting gang members, or committing

crimes while in a gang. In addition, DHS has long prioritized

its resources to target suspected gang members for

deportation.

H.R. 3697 will disproportionately harm younger immigrants--

particularly unaccompanied minors, some of whom flee their

home countries to escape gang violence, forced drug

trafficking, and sexual violence, and who are at high risk of

being coerced to participate in criminal activity. It will

also indiscriminately bar these immigrants from asylum,

withholding of removal, or other forms of humanitarian

relief.

Only a week after the elimination of the Deferred Action

for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, we are deeply

disappointed that Congress's first legislative response is to

further erode due process protections for immigrants and put

them at an even greater risk of deportation. We urge you to

oppose H.R. 3697.

Sincerely,

Vanita Gupta,

President & CEO.

This clearly says this is not a bill against crime, it is a deportation bill.

Save our children, Mr. Speaker. Let's do something different and defeat the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act of 2017''.

This bill amends the INA to now include a definition for criminal street gangs as:

An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of certain listed offenses, including: a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of marijuana (this would impact high school kids who may gather to smoke marijuana); bringing in and harboring certain aliens under INA 274 (this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants); identity fraud offenses (including knowingly possessing a false identity document); crimes involving obstruction of justice; and burglary.

This bill also defines ``criminal gang'': a group that has been designated as a criminal gang by the DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General.

I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because the bill contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the American people.

As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee.

In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale.

This bill (1) is constitutionally unsound; (2) has a very low standard of proof; and (3) will result in a sweeping effect among many innocent individuals who have not committed any crime, and thus, raises due process and racial profile concerns.

First, this bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland Security is to determine its designation of a ``criminal street gang''.

I offered an amendment that would have required a uniform legal standard, which will govern the identification of Criminal Street gang members for purposes of ICE enforcement.

According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of detention and deportation.

If we begin to criminalize for associations then we are heading down a terribly dark road, particularly with youths. Statistics show that the brain does not fully develop until the age of 25. To punish them for mere association based on unsubstantiated evidence is bad legislation.

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015.

Due to this bill's vague nature, we would add to that alarming number, and further complicates mass incarceration.

Second, the government's mere belief that someone is associated with a criminal gang is sufficient. Given the need for the Department of Homeland Security to come in and deport

any individual, the bar must be higher than mere suspicion and/or belief. There must be a clear and convincing standard under these circumstances.

This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent residence status; so long as the government believes the individual is associated with a criminal street gang.

Even 13 or 14 year old juveniles that the government may believe are engaging in marijuana use, other drugs, or have association with criminal gangs would be subject to this bill's penalty.

Third, this bill have a sweeping effect given its vague definition and overbroad targets for those who may harbor certain aliens and/or associate with criminal gang members.

This bill has a discriminatory effect in targeting the immigrant community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises due process and racial profiling concerns.

Criminal gangs are very complex and are not exclusive to the immigrant community.

The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today.

Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal moneymaking activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud.

Strikingly, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a significantly larger percentage was non illegal immigrants, unlike the message purported in this bill.

Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to name a few here that are mainly white supremacist gang groups. We could go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group.

As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee; and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree.

So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening.

Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter.

We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up.

So Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning where necessary on behalf of the American people.

We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools, health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change, building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country together for ``all'' the American people, we are instead debating a damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business.

My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this bill. In its current form, it is bad for our country and does not keep our communities safe, but instead does the opposite.

For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Madam Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

While this amendment will not kill the bill, it will save lives. It does this by transferring $2.4 billion to the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account, offset by eliminating the funding for the President's border wall and new funds for ICE to be used for an additional 10,000 detention beds.

Mitigation is preplanning. Mitigation is helping to mitigate the power outages all over the hurricane region. Mitigation is to minimize losses.

When we listen to the better angels of our nature, we know in our hearts that this is the right and just and American thing to do.

I along with my colleagues were eyewitnesses to the devastation inflicted on southeast Texas and Louisiana when struck on August 25, 2017, by Hurricane Harvey.

Our colleagues from Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and those neighbors in the Caribbean are bearing similar witness to the terrible destruction caused earlier this week by Hurricane Irma.

Irma has taken the lives of at least 75 persons, to date, including 32 in Florida; 5 in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and may be counting upwards; 37 in the Caribbean; and, as well, 8 seniors who died, and the numbers may be going up because of those who are critical; and a family of 6 in the State of Texas. 200,000 Floridians were housed in shelters as of Monday, and 7.2 million homes and businesses are still without power.

Our hearts and prayers are with the victims of Hurricane Irma, and all Americans stand in solidarity with them and pledge to assist them in the long and hard work of recovery and reconstruction.

Hurricane Harvey is a heartbreaking but, also, a heartwarming story of horror and heroism. The epic storm dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston metroplex. To put this in perspective, that is enough water to fill more than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply water to the power of the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days.

More than 49,000 homes suffered flood damage. More than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm.

But in the response to Hurricane Harvey, the world also saw the large and small acts of courage and kindness that Americans are known for, by our volunteers, our military, our Texas National Guard, and many others.

More than 13,000 people were rescued in the Houston area by the U.S. Coast Guard and the local first responders, police, fire, and civilian volunteers risking danger to help their friends and neighbors and persons they did not even know.

One of those who gave his life in service to others was Sergeant Steve Perez, who was funeralized yesterday, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department. He left his home that morning and said: I have got to go to work. There are things that have to be done.

And then there was the DREAMer, Alonso Guillen, who came to Texas from Mexico as a teenager, who died

when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding. He was funeralized just a few days ago.

That is who Texans are, and this is what Americans do.

To date, Harvey has claimed the lives of more than 60 persons, including, as I said, 6 members of the Saldivar family, who perished in Greens Bayou while trying to evacuate their flooded home and community.

Madam Speaker, Hurricane Harvey was one of the worst, but not the first, of natural disasters to befall our country; and, as Hurricane Irma demonstrated, it is not the last. That is why we need to pass this amendment, so that FEMA has the resources to assist States ahead of time, U.S. territories, federally recognized Tribes, and local communities in implementing sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation programs.

Pre-disaster mitigation funds help reduce overall risk to people and structures from future disasters, raise public awareness, and reduce future losses before disaster strikes. I might also mention, it may deal with the issue of power loss ahead of time.

Mitigation planning is key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage reconstruction and repeated damage. We needed it. We need more of it.

Madam Speaker, we do not need another 10,000 beds in ICE detention centers, but we do need more than 10,000 beds in evacuation shelters.

We do not need to spend millions detaining law-abiding families. We do need to invest in sheltering disaster victims.

This amendment will ensure we spend less on raids and roundups and more on rescues.

Madam Speaker, we certainly do not need to spend $1.6 billion on a wall to stem the hoard of bad hombres streaming across our southern border that exists only in the imagination or paranoia. Those numbers are down. Know the real immediate threat to the security of our homeland.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.

If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

While this amendment will not kill the bill, it will save lives.

It does this by transferring $2.4 billion to the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account, offset by eliminating the funding for the President's border wall and new funds for ICE to be used for an additional 10,000 detention beds.

When we listen to the better angels of our nature, we know in our hearts this is the right and just--and the American--thing to do.

I was an eyewitness to the devastation inflicted on Southeast Texas and Louisiana when struck on August 25, 2017 by Hurricane Harvey.

Our colleagues from the great State of Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands are bearing similar witness to the terrible destruction caused earlier this week by Hurricane Irma.

Hurricane Irma has taken the lives of at least 75 persons to date, including 32 in Florida, 5 in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 37 in the Caribbean island nations of Barbuda, St. Maarten, Antigua, St. Kitts and Nevis.

200,000 Floridians were housed in shelters as of Monday and 7.2 million homes and businesses are still without power.

Our hearts and prayers are with the victims of Hurricane Irma and all Americans stand in solidarity with them and pledge to assist them in the long and hard work of recovery and reconstruction.

Hurricane Harvey is a heart-breaking but also heartwarming story of horror and heroism.

This epic storm dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex.

To put this in perspective, that is enough water to fill more than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply water to power the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days.

More than 49,000 homes suffered flood damage and more than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm.

But in the response to Hurricane Harvey the world also saw the large and small acts of courage and kindness that Americans are known for.

More than 13,000 people were rescued in the Houston area by the U.S. Coast Guard, state and local first responders, and civilian volunteers risking danger to help their friends, neighbors, and persons they did not even know.

One of those heroes was a Dreamer, Alonso Guillen, who came to Texas from Mexico as a teenager, and who died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding.

Another who gave his life in service to others was Sergeant Steve Perez, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department, who insisted on reporting for duty early despite his beloved wife's pleas that he stay home given the dangerous conditions outside.

That is who Texans are and this is what Americans do.

To date Hurricane Harvey has claimed the lives of more than 60 persons, including six members of the Saldivar family who perished in Greens Bayou while trying to evacuate their flooded home and community.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Harvey was one of the worst, but not the first, natural disasters to befall our country, and as Hurricane Irma demonstrates, it is not the last.

And that is why we need to pass this amendment so that FEMA has the resources needed to assist States, U.S. Territories, Federally- recognized tribes, and local communities in implementing sustained pre- disaster natural hazard mitigation programs.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds help reduce overall risk to people and structures from future disasters and raise public awareness about reducing future losses before disaster strikes.

Mitigation planning is key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need another 10,000 beds in ICE detention centers; but we do need more than 10,000 beds in evacuation shelters.

We do not need to spend millions detaining law-abiding families; we do need to invest in sheltering disaster victims.

This amendment will ensure we spend less on raids and roundups and more on rescues.

And Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not need to spend $1.6 billion on a wall to stem the horde of bad hombres streaming across our southern border that exists only in imagination or paranoia.

No, the real and immediate threat to the security of our homeland is the destructive power of the apocalyptic invading armies of wind and water, appearing in the form of hurricanes and floods.

We do not need to waste money building a wall to prevent river crossings on the southern border.

We do need more pre-Disaster funding to help people get across the rivers running through the streets of our cities and towns when hurricanes strike unleashing floods.

Mr. Speaker, the choice now before the House is whether we should have more beds in detention centers or more beds in evacuation shelters.

Instead of the closed and angry fist of walls, roundups, and detention, we should choose instead to extend an open and loving hand to help the hopeless, homeless, and helpless.

In doing so, we reveal the true character of our nation and earn the blessings of our Creator.

I urge all Members to support this motion to recommit.

I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment to provide for the safety and security of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 513, I call up the bill (H.R. 3697) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens associated with criminal gangs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3697.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. I introduced this bill with Chairman Goodlatte and Representatives Comstock and King for a very simple reason: the United States is facing an ever-growing danger from transnational gangs, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, needs more tools to deal with this danger.

The Federal Government's most important responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. However, we are not fulfilling that responsibility when we allow gangs to illegally enter our country with the express purpose of victimizing innocent Americans.

In communities across our country, transnational gangs are using violence and the threat of violence to create a climate of fear that allows them to operate with near impunity. They regularly target local business owners and law enforcement officials. Innocent bystanders, those unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are also paying a price.

According to ICE, these gangs ``have grown to become a serious threat in American communities across the Nation--not only in cities, but increasingly in suburban and even rural areas. Entire neighborhoods and sometimes whole communities are held hostage by and subjected to their violence.''

Furthermore, ICE has found that, ``membership of these violent transnational gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.''

The most infamous transnational gang, of course, is MS-13, which entered the U.S. in the 1980s. Today, it has over 10,000 gang members operating inside the United States alone. At every level, our enforcement officials are working to curb this growing threat with large-scale enforcement actions. These include Operation New Dawn, which netted almost 1,100 arrests over a 6-week period.

However, we all know that prosecution of criminal gang members is notoriously difficult. This is because victims and witnesses of gang crime are often reluctant to testify because of the quite reasonable fear of retaliation against them or their families, thus many gang members are never convicted of the crimes they have committed.

The question is often asked: Why should law-abiding Americans have to wait until an alien gang member has committed a deportable offense? Why not deport the gang member before he has a chance to victimize more innocent people? The answer is that current immigration law contains dangerous loopholes that alien gang members are exploiting.

Currently, an alien may not be deported, even if he is known to be a member of a criminal gang or participating in gang activities. ICE must wait for the gang member to be first convicted of a deportable offense.

H.R. 3697 changes that. For the first time, ICE will be permitted to place alien gang members into removal proceedings on the grounds of being criminal gang members. Our bill sets out clear specifications for what crimes are considered to be gang related, relying on longstanding Federal criminal law to determine what a gang or group consists of.

In addition, our bill permits the Secretary of Homeland Security, using procedures already used by the Secretary of State, to designate a gang as a criminal gang. This would be done in a transparent way through notification to Congress and publication in the Federal Register and with meaningful judicial review.

The conclusive decision as to whether to place an alien in removal proceedings would rest with the Department of Homeland Security. When an alien is charged, the charge must be proven by evidence on the record in immigration court.

I have heard some uneasiness that ICE will use these provisions to charge any alien they encounter with gang activity. Our bill does not allow that. As a former immigration attorney, I know the importance of due process and know how important it is for illegal immigrants and for Americans and everyone within the jurisdictions of the immigration court to receive due process. I can tell you that our bill is consistent with due process.

Under H.R. 3697, ICE has the burden of proof when charging an alien with a deportable offense. While the alien has the burden of proof when they are inadmissible, a denial of gang membership should be sufficient to shift the burden back to the government. The government must convince an immigration judge of its case. Of course, an alien ordered removed as a gang member has every right to appeal that order to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then to the Federal courts.

Ultimately, H.R. 3697 is about providing law enforcement with the necessary tools to combat gang activity in every community in our country. This is essential if we, as elected officials, are committed to our responsibility to keep the American people safe and secure. That is the purpose of H.R. 3697.

This is the third time this year the House is holding a floor vote on portions of the Davis-Oliver Act, which I introduced back in May, to make our country safer through stronger immigration enforcement.

I am proud that the House passed the first two bills that came from Davis-Oliver, Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3697 as well.

We must take action now or watch crime rates rise in our Nation. There is no place in our country for criminal alien gang members, and any legislation which makes it easier to deport them deserves the support of every Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), the lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I know we spent a lot of time in committee talking about a lot of different issues, but maybe the gentleman forgets that we had 3 whole days of hearings on the Davis-Oliver Act, which this bill was included in, and many arguments were made against the Davis-Oliver Act. Most of the arguments that are being made today were not made against this portion of the act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We should save our children. We need to start deporting some criminal gang members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Virginia an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing again and again and again that there is no dispute about ongoing violence or gang violence in the United States, but what has been clear from today's argument is that our friends on the other side just don't want to do anything about it. They are willing to talk about the gang violence, but they don't want to actually craft and pass legislation that does something about it.

I hope it is something that the American people are listening to, because as we have debates over the next few months about what we should be doing with regard to immigration, I hope everyone understands that every time we try to do something about enforcement of immigration laws, about stopping gang violation, about stopping illegal immigration into the United States, it is very difficult to get agreement on the other side.

Criminal alien gang members are wreaking havoc in this country. Without stronger tools to specifically target those aliens that terrorize our streets, gangs will continue to grow in numbers and in strength.

The time has come to take action and to provide a path to deportation to those that so unabashedly seek to destroy our society.

ICE has found that ``membership of these violent transnational gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.'' Often bearing the brunt of these gangs' violence are these very immigrant communities that the other side claims that they want to protect.

The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes a tough approach. I agree with that. Those gang members who have successfully evaded prosecution through witness intimidation, employing the tactics of fear and violence, will now be within ICE's reach. The new grounds of removability provided by H.R. 3697 will get criminal gang members off of our streets.

ICE's recent Operation New Dawn resulted in almost 1,100 arrests of gang

members. Had H.R. 3697 been enacted prior, that number would have almost certainly increased.

This bill is only starting the removal process, however. Make no mistake--and there was a lot of obfuscation today about this-- immigration proceedings do not equate to deportation. The government must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an immigration judge that gang-related activity occurred.

As a former private immigration attorney, I have seen this process in action, and it does work. ICE will not use this new charge as pretext, as this ground will never be sustained by an immigration judge without sufficient evidence.

The time for this bill is long overdue, and we cannot afford to be distracted by extreme hypotheticals and issues not germane to what we are discussing today.

This bill was introduced to target criminal gangs, as that term is commonly understood, and that is what it will do once enacted. There is no place in our country for criminal alien gang members. By removing them from our streets, H.R. 3697 will help make our communities safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.