TRASH 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 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, early this summer, on a Friday night, just about 30 miles from this Capital, I went on a ride-along in my district with our Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force.

A young boy standing on the sidewalk along Sterling Boulevard in Sterling, Virginia, caught the eye of a veteran member of our task force. The young man on the street looked about 15 or 16 years old, but he was actually a 22-year-old member of the transnational violent street gang known as MS-13. He was covered in MS-13 gang tattoos--on his chest, his back, his feet.

It turned out, he had been in jail in El Salvador for murder as a teenager, and he had already been deported from the U.S. twice for engaging in violent crimes here.

Three other of the estimated thousands of MS-13 gang members that are just here in our Capital region were also picked up that night. There have been cases in northern Virginia where a suspected member of the MS-13 gang has been deported five times, yet returned again to continue their gang activity.

At a town festival in Herndon this year, the gang task force identified--because they go to these events and they see these people-- an estimated 200 to 300 suspected gang members milling about among the families who were getting cotton candy and hot dogs for their kids. They are right there looking to recruit in their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, since November 2016, at least eight murders have been committed and tied to MS-13 and other

gangs in our area, representing a 166 percent increase over the last year in the northern Virginia region.

An MS-13-linked vicious murder occurred in November 2015. Of course, I should acknowledge that they are all vicious when you are talking about MS-13. This happened on an Alexandria playground in the evening just about 8 miles from this Capital, and it resulted in the death of 24-year-old Jose Luis Ferman Perez. He was nearly decapitated in the machete attack. His body was left on the playground and was found by a woman walking her dog the next morning. It could have been one of the kids playing on the playground finding that.

The Washington Post has highlighted how the 2014 border surge has contributed to the MS-13 problem, saying: ``The violent street gang is on the rise in the United States, fueled, in part, by the surge in unaccompanied minors.''

A recent Washington Post article documented the case of gang members who videotaped the murder of a 15-year-old girl, Damaris Reyes Rivas, who was savagely beaten by multiple people, and repeatedly stabbed by all of these gang members. The video of this was intended to be sent to MS-13 gang leadership in El Salvador to confirm that this greenlit murder had been carried out.

Tragically, MS-13 targets and preys upon their own community, on young people who may not have much of a family structure around them. Sadly, these children and young people were actually fleeing MS-13 in their own countries of El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala, only to come here and be targeted.

There was one case that, fortunately, the Norther Virginia Regional Gang Task Force was able to intercept, where a brother was trying to enlist his own brother to join the MS-13 gang. And when he refused to, he put a hit out on him. Fortunately, the gang task force was able to stop that.

We cannot allow this to stand. Mr. Speaker, the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force is battling this problem in our region, but they still need more resources. In our appropriations process, we have directed more resources for our regional task forces. I have personally talked to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is very familiar with this MS-13 problem, having been a U.S. attorney in the Maryland region.

Our regional task force is comprised of 13 local, State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and the task force has a three-pronged approach: education, intervention and prevention, and enforcement. We need to provide support on all three of these fronts.

I witnessed firsthand the exhausting work of the task force; the technology they utilize on the streets that was able to immediately identify just with fingerprints the background of this gang member that they were able to arrest; the detailed knowledge they have of our communities and our neighborhoods; the positive relationships they have with the people in these communities, the very people that are being victimized; and the challenges they face with this problem that has returned to our area.

That is why I sponsored H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, with my colleagues, so it will provide additional tools to law enforcement. It will ensure that when ICE positively identifies a known alien gang member, they may act immediately. This legislation identifies gang membership and participation in gang activity as grounds for inadmissibility and removability. We don't have to wait until these brutal killers wield their machetes or leave another body on a children's playground.

This is a marked improvement over current law where ICE must wait for specific convictions before removal proceedings can commence. The bill preserves, as my colleague has already identified, all the due process and appellate rights afforded to any alien facing deportation.

An immigration judge must be convinced that the evidence in the record supports the finding. I encourage support of this legislation today, which will strengthen and enforce our laws against known violent gang members. I also will continue to work with my colleagues on other matters, such as the bill I introduced earlier this summer, to provide additional resources to our regional gang task forces for their education, intervention, and enforcement efforts.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, in 2015, at an Alexandria playground in Mr. Beyer's district, 8 miles from this Capitol, the body of a 24-year- old man was left nearly decapitated in a grisly murder by one of the thousands of MS-13 gang members in our country. I should also mention that that victim was also an MS-13 gang member.

This very Capital region has the second highest number of MS-13 gang members. Criminal alien gang members are growing in numbers in our region around the country and wrecking havoc in my district and in this very region. Without stronger tools to specifically target those specific aliens--this bill targets them--that terrorize our streets, gangs like MS-13 will then continue to grow in numbers and strength if we aren't targeting them. The time has come to take action and provide a path for deportation for violent criminal gang members.

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 the very immigrant communities in which they reside. They target their own communities. We have seen that in my region and in my district, and that is why this is so troubling.

The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act will address this. 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 help get criminal gang members off our streets.

ICE's recent Operation New Dawn has resulted in almost 1,100 arrests of gang members. Had this bill been enacted prior, that number could have increased. This bill is only starting the removal process, however.

Make no mistake, regular immigration proceedings will still apply. The government must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an immigration judge. This bill preserves all due process and appellate rights afforded to any alien facing deportation.

The time for this bill is long overdue. It was introduced to target criminal gangs, as that term is commonly understood, and that is what it will do once it is enacted.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote for the base bill, H.R. 3697, and to provide ICE with the tools it needs to keep dangerous criminal alien gang members off our streets, out of our communities, and out of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho and the chair of our subcommittee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.

Transnational criminal gangs have declared war on the United States. Their tactics of intimidation and unspeakable mutilation and killing have permeated most every part of our country, including multiple instances in my own district. Most recently in Bedford County, Virginia, a young man was killed by alien members of MS-13.

The Department of Homeland Security reports an ever-growing number of criminal aliens joining international gangs, such as MS-13, which alone has over 10,000 members within our borders. Whether these criminals came to this country illegally as unaccompanied minors, adults, or have valid visas or even green cards, it is time to send the message that this behavior will simply not be tolerated.

Yet current immigration law includes no provision allowing for the removal of criminal gang members based on their membership in dangerous gangs or participation in gang activities. The result is unconscionable. ICE must sit on the sidelines and wait for known gang members to be arrested and convicted of specific offenses before removal proceedings may commence. Of course, with many victims and witnesses too petrified of retaliation against them and their families to cooperate with police, many gang members are never convicted of their crimes.

This legislation provides a crucial tool so that ICE can seek to remove alien gang members before they are able to extort businesses and murder innocent Americans.

In addition, this bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate organizations as criminal gangs utilizing the same transparent procedures used by the Secretary of State to designate foreign terrorist organizations. Finally, the bill ensures that criminal alien gang members cannot receive asylum and be released back onto our streets able to resume their criminal activities while being eligible for a vast array of Federal benefits.

Eradicating the death grip that transnational criminal alien gangs hold over many of our communities, especially immigrant communities, is an important piece of immigration reform. I am pleased that this bill, which stems from legislation that the House has approved in the past and which has been approved by the Judiciary Committee in multiple Congresses, is being considered today.

Now, I want to address the allegation that this bill targets priests, nuns, and garage band members. It is preposterous. This bill deliberately includes the longstanding Federal criminal offenses for alien smuggling as predicates for criminal gang activity. Coyotes and other criminal gangs make billions of dollars and put countless lives at risk through their alien smuggling activities.

As former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who emigrated to the United States from Latin America as a child, stated: ``Smuggling aliens across our borders is a dangerous business. All too often, people entrust their lives to smugglers, only to die in the broiling desert, or suffocate in the back of locked, airless trucks while the smugglers profit.''

``These smuggling rings, which facilitate illegal entry into the United States and mercilessly exploit human beings for money, are a danger to immigrants and a threat to our national security. . . .''

The Democrats are engaging in a huge amount of obfuscation. In the past, House Democrats claimed the House passed legislation that would have strengthened Federal alien smuggling laws, would have had the effect of putting priests and nuns at risk of prosecution. The Democrats' clear implication was that these problems didn't exist under then-current law which remains current law.

Let me quote. Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee, including John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Sheila Jackson Lee, they stated that the bill then under consideration goes far beyond increasing penalties for alien smuggling and jeopardizes the well-being of millions of Americans, neighbors, family members, faith institutions, and others who live and work with undocumented immigrants.

Former Speaker Pelosi, the current minority leader, stated: ``Under the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling,''--the bill--``it could make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers, rabbis, and social service workers who provide assistance and acts of charity to those in need.''

The Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't argue one day that we can't change current law because that would result in putting priests and nuns at risk and argue the next day that, without any evidence, current law already puts them at risk. To add to the hypocrisy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by voice vote.

So to add to the controversy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by voice vote to add human smuggling to the list of predicate acts under the Federal money laundering statute.

The Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement simply do not target clergy and others who do not make distinctions based on immigration status when serving those in spiritual or material need.

The use of such laws against religious organizations and other humanitarian groups has been practically nonexistent. Of course, as in the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, when religious organizations engage in the smuggling of illegal aliens into the United States, they would be subject to prosecution, just as anyone else would be.

This bill is based upon the same precedent that has been passed through this House by voice vote dealing with human smuggling. It is time to apply the same standard to alien gang members who are perpetrating violence not just on people traveling to the United States, as in the case of human smuggling, but on the citizens of virtually every State in the Union.

The murders that have been outlined by Mr. King of New York, Mrs. Comstock of Virginia, Mr. Labrador of Idaho, and others are taking place all across the country because we simply are not removing from this country as expeditiously as possible members of gangs like MS-13. It is time to get about doing that, and this bill does that.

I want to commend Representative Barbara Comstock; Representative Peter King; and the chairman of our Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, Representative Raul Labrador, for their work on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3697.