Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6691) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition of "crime of violence", and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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

I will take the opportunity to say good morning to the manager of the bill, my co-member on the House Judiciary Committee. I start this way, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, because I always want to emphasize when I am on the floor that the Judiciary Committee has had many instances of bipartisanship.

I am very glad to have been on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee for more than a number of years. I have seen our work, and it has certainly been in a bipartisan mode.

I want to acknowledge the chairman of the committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler. In many instances on the crime reform issues, we have tried to work hand-in-hand together.

It seems that criminal justice reform has partners on both sides of the aisle. It is certainly an issue that draws a vast number of stakeholders, particularly my friends in the faith community; social justice community; my friends in the libertarian community, if you will; and, certainly, giants like the ACLU, the Lawyers' Committee, and many others that have been engaged in these issues, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. So you can see that we bring people together.

So I rise to discuss H.R. 6691, the Community Safety and Security Act of 2018, which amends section 16 of title 18.

Section 16 sets forth the universal definition of what constitutes a crime of violence for the entirety of the criminal code. Therefore, this definition is critically important, and I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are introducing such an important amendment in such a hasty, precipitous manner.

Although my colleagues claim that the introduction of this bill has not been hasty and that it has been vetted for months on their side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle, we have had no engagement.

This bill has been laid before us for 7 days. Last Friday, it was singly introduced when Members were not here and, as well, before a 3- day weekend.

Let me be very clear. Criminal justice reform is not a sausage. We would work over the months and years with academic experts; victims; law enforcement--that is our family; and beyond, our prosecutors; our law enforcement; and, certainly, the Sentencing Commission, for example; our judges. We are concerned about thei viewpoints.

So I know there may be one or two who have written and may be supporting this, but this is not the way we get to the floor.

H.R. 6691 would expand the definition of crimes of violence in section 16 in two ways: enumerating certain offenses that do not currently exist under Federal law, and it would have been good to have a hearing or a series of hearings on this to be recognized for crimes of violence for Federal purposes; and by adding alternative definitions to already-existing Federal offenses, in order to have these new definitions also qualify as Federal crimes of violence.

Again, here is the trigger: More and more people incarcerated maybe could find another way of addressing these questions, even by law enforcement.

The Supreme Court recently decided Sessions v. Dimaya, holding that subsection (b) of section 16, known as the residual clause, is unconstitutionally vague. Subsection (a) in the Dimaya case left untouched defines a crime of violence as one that requires as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

In response to Dimaya, my colleagues are now putting forth a bill to substitute subsection (b) for a list of crimes of violence, many of which have no element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

In addition, even the residual clause stricken down by Dimaya requires that a crime of violence at least be a felony. H.R. 6691 strips away the felony requirement.

For these reasons, this bill radically amends section 16. We go back to the old days of throwing everybody in jail.

This bill does not just list a few statutes that are obvious crimes of violence. It enumerates at least 32 separate crimes, some of which are not Federal crimes. It even offers alternative definitions for several Federal crimes. This requires careful consideration.

How dare anyone suggest that anyone on this side of the aisle is soft on crime. Some of my best friends, as we have heard others say in other settings, are law enforcement. I speak to my police officers every time I see them in the district. I am talking to the command frequently. Sometimes I congratulate them for a successful capture of a dastardly criminal.

Obviously, many of those crimes are State laws. But I know the State of Texas has been working to reduce the numbers of persons incarcerated. There is no doubt with law enforcement who the bad actors are. On the Federal level, it is the same.

But here we are, with a 1-week-old baby that has not been vetted and helped and nurtured to be able to make it work. This is serious work that we do here. So rather than proceeding through regular order by having a hearing to ascertain the relevant information from experts that will help us establish the best approach for dealing with the constitutionality of section 16, and the Federal definition of crimes of violence, we have been given 1 week to vote, with no markups to allow amendments germane to the bill's purpose.

Mr. Speaker, regular order is not a crime. Instead of taking the time to fashion a definition that takes into consideration the many legal ramifications of changing this term as proposed, the bill's sponsors are haphazardly pushing forward an overly expansive definition of crime of violence for political purposes.

Where are my civil libertarians? Where are my persons who believe in the Constitution, due process?

The bill is overbroad; two, unnecessary; and three, it could have substantial harmful effects.

First, the bill is overbroad and includes in its list of crimes of violence a number of offenses that have no element of violence or force at all. No one likes burglary, but burglary, for example, is included in the enumerated list of crimes of violence, though it would simply mean remaining in a building without authorization and, while there, forming the attempt to commit even a minor, nonviolent offense.

Likewise, the bill lists coercion through fraud as a violent felony, though violence plays no part in that criminal offense.

The bill would also make simple assault a crime of violence, even in the circumstances where the underlying act is merely a push or a shove.

None of us applaud any of that, but we recognize in this vast country that our citizens have basic rights. One of the more egregious examples of an offense listed as a crime of violence is fleeing by automobile, which is knowingly operating a motor vehicle and failing or refusing to comply with a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop, or fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. This definition does not even require intent to elude law enforcement.

Under this bill, what could have amounted to a traffic violation is, instead, a crime of violence.

It doesn't mean that we do not utilize these elements, but we are able to have vetted it in a way that truly is the crime that law enforcement seeks to protect themselves against and the public against.

Another specific area of concern is in the context of juvenile justice. If the Federal Government is prosecuting a juvenile, this bill would authorize the government to seek the transfer to adult court of someone as young as 15 years old if they were accused of committing a felony crime of violence. That may be a burglary, unintentionally in a building. We note where teenagers are and how they behave.

Under this new definition is even interference with a flight crew or an argument with a flight attendant over a Diet Coke.

And we want safety everywhere, on the highways and byways, throughout our neighborhoods and schools. We want to make sure that we attend to this, but this is serious work and it should have been done in regular order.

The consequences of H.R. 6691 are dangerous, especially as we look to the new attitude of the Justice Department, which is charging on every offense. Unlike the comprehensive and collaborative manner previously utilized in the past administration, working with faith leaders, working with law enforcement, working with advocates for social and criminal justice, U.S. attorneys were directed to not charge up, to focus on the highest crime.

Now we have the tendency to use a sprawling, overbroad definition of violent crime to justify more arrests and prosecutions and long prison sentences.

Has anybody met an ex-felon, many of them wanting to do right? I see a lot of them where good businesses have hired them. They want their head down, they want to work, they want to get an apartment, they want to support their family. They are not interested in going back again, nor are they interested in being accused of a minor offense and being ``felonized,'' if you will.

Second, a new definition of ``crime of violence'' is unnecessary, even in light of Dimaya. The court in Dimaya held that the residual clause is unconstitutional, but left in place subsection a. While perhaps not an ideal formulation, subsection a can, for now, suffice as a placeholder until Congress can undertake a more deliberate approach. Even so the Senate would have a companion bill, which to our knowledge, it does not. It is important to take note of the fact.

Third, changing the definition of a crime of violence can have other harmful effects; for example, it could have

significant exclusionary effects for criminal justice reform legislation. There is proposed legislation that excludes people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release considerations, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors. So it would exclude people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release consideration, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors while in custody. Unnecessarily expanding who is ineligible for these provisions is both unwise and counterproductive.

So as I have indicated, it is important that when we work together, we must work together through the goals of reforming our criminal justice system, which Congress has acknowledged needs dire fixing. Let's work together.

I am pushing for the revisions of criminal justice reform for juveniles. Reforming the juvenile justice system that locks up juveniles forever and ever because they are not sentenced in many instances. Certainly there are few juveniles in the Federal system, but in our State systems. And when we use the bully pulpit, States begin to reform their systems.

In addition, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, ACLU, Center for American Progress, and several others have opposed this bill.

We are on the Judiciary Committee. We believe in justice. Along with the advocates, we need true experts, and we are experts on these subject matters. And we are troubled by the reckless speed in which this bill was brought to the floor.

We understand the intent. We welcome it. But I have listed the fractures, the problems, the undermining of due process, the throwing the key away on good people who want to do better or who did not intend to exercise some of the elements that are in this bill.

So I ask my colleagues in this instance to recognize that this is too fast and to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 6691, the ``Community Safety and Security Act of 2018,'' which amends section 16 of Title 18.

Section 16 sets forth the universal definition of what constitutes a ``crime of violence'' for the entirety of the criminal code.

Therefore, this definition is critically important and I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side are introducing such an important amendment in such a reckless manner.

Although my colleagues claim that the introduction of this bill has not been hasty and that it has been vetted for months, on this side we have had this bill for seven days. It was introduced exactly one week ago today, on the day before a three-day weekend. That is reckless.

H.R. 6691 would expand the definition of crimes of violence in section 16 in two ways: (1) by enumerating certain offenses that do not currently exist under Federal law to be recognized as crimes of violence for Federal purposes; and (2) by adding alternative definitions to already-existing Federal offenses in order to have these new definitions also qualify as Federal crimes of violence.

The Supreme Court recently decided Sessions v Dimaya, holding that subsection (b) of section 16, known as the ``residual clause,'' is unconstitutionally vague.

Subsection (a), which Dimaya left untouched, defines a crime of violence as one that requires, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

In response to Dimaya, my colleagues are now putting forth this bill to substitute subsection (b) for a list of ``crimes of violence,'' many of which have no element involving the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force.

In addition, even the residual clause stricken down by Dimaya required that a crime of violence at least be a felony. H.R. 6691 strips away the felony requirement.

For these reasons, this bill radically amends section 16. This bill does not just list a few statutes that are obvious crimes of violence. It enumerates at least 32 separate crimes, some of which are not Federal crimes, and it even offers alternative definitions for several Federal crimes. This requires careful consideration.

But rather than proceeding through regular order by having a hearing, to ascertain relevant information from experts that will help us establish the best approach for dealing with the constitutionality of section 16 and the Federal definition of crimes of violence, we have been given one week to vote, with no markups to allow amendments, germane to the bill's purpose.

Instead of taking the time to fashion a definition that takes into consideration the many legal ramifications of changing this term as proposed, the bill's sponsors are haphazardly pushing forward an overly-expansive definition of ``crime of violence'' for political purposes. The bill is (1) overbroad, (2) unnecessary, and (3) could have substantial harmful effects.

First, the bill is overbroad and includes in its list of crimes of violence a number of offenses that have no element of violence, or force, at all. Burglary, for example, is included in the enumerated list of crimes of violence though it could simply mean remaining in a building without authorization and, while there, forming the intent to commit even a minor, non-violent offense. Likewise, the bill lists coercion through fraud as a violent felony, though violence plays no part in that criminal offense. The bill would also make simple assault a crime of violence even in circumstances where the underlying act is merely a push or a shove.

One of the more egregious examples of an offense listed as a crime of violence is ``fleeing by automobile'' which is ``knowingly operating a motor vehicle and--(A) failing or refusing to comply with a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop; or (B) fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.'' This definition does not even require an intent to elude law enforcement. Under this bill, what could have amounted to a traffic violation becomes, instead, a ``crime of violence''.

Another specific area of concern is in the context of juvenile justice. If the Federal government is prosecuting a juvenile, this bill would authorize the government to seek transfer to adult court of someone as young as 15 years old if they are accused of committing a felony ``crime of violence'' under this new definition--even for something as minor as getting in an argument with a flight attendant over a Diet Coke.

The consequences of H.R. 6691 are dangerous, especially in the hands of a Sessions Justice Department, which has displayed a general tendency to use a sprawling, overbroad definition of violent crime to justify more arrests and prosecutions and longer prison sentences.

Second, a new definition of crime of violence is unnecessary, even in light of Dimaya. The Court in Dimaya held that the residual clause is unconstitutional, but left in place subsection (a). While perhaps not an ideal formulation, subsection (a) can for now suffice as a placeholder until Congress can undertake a more deliberate approach, instead of the reflexive one proposed by H.R. 6691.

Third, changing the definition of a crime of violence can have other harmful effects. For example, it could have significant exclusionary effects for criminal justice reform legislation. There is proposed legislation that excludes people convicted of a crime of violence from pretrial release considerations, expungement of crimes, and receiving visitors while in custody. Unnecessarily expanding who is ineligible for these provisions is both unwise and counterproductive to the goals of reforming our criminal justice system, which Congress has acknowledged needs dire fixing.

Families Against Mandatory Minimum (FAMM), ACLU, Center for American Progress (CAP), and several other organizations have opposed this bill.

We on the Judiciary Committee, along with advocates that are true experts on these subject matters are troubled by the reckless speed with which this bill was brought to the floor today.

We should take the time to explore why.

According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center on January 12, 2018, the number of African Americans in prisons are 33 percent. The number of Hispanics are 23 percent. Therefore, together they make up 56 percent of today's prison population.

Mr. Speaker, if I might respond to the gentleman's presentation.

Due process is denied and could be denied, based upon the fact that there is no element of the offenses that are just listed in a laundry- list type. That would come about if we had done this in an extensive manner of review.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the status quo is the very point we are making, that the status quo is the unclarity, if you will, and, therefore, it is important that we pursue this in a manner of constructively understanding what is the best approach to protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire how many speakers the gentlewoman from Georgia has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I indicated the work of the Judiciary Committee, and it has been enhanced by the ranking member, Mr. Nadler. We have worked on criminal justice issues bipartisanly, and I want to thank Mr. Nadler for doing so. That is the tragedy of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, sometimes vagueness is the extinguishing of constitutional rights. I know, and I will have the numbers, that the predominant numbers of incarcerated persons throughout the Nation are African Americans and Hispanics. That is men and women. A rising number of women are being incarcerated, some of them tied to crimes of their boyfriend, husband, or other significant other.

Juveniles are also being incarcerated throughout the State system.

Mass incarceration is a big deal, so it behooves us to be diligent. In this particular bill, yes, Mr. Speaker, it should have been collaborative and bipartisan, because none of us will yield to a dastardly criminal act that impacts our constituents or the American people. But a fact is a fact. This generates racial disparities.

As my friend from California indicated, individuals who put on the uniform, who may be legal permanent residents, veterans, have the potential, in spite of the uniform that they put on and their willingness to sacrifice their life for America, caught in the wrong situation, could be deported.

This is not to be taken lightly. Frankly, if my friends had studied the Constitution and read the Supreme Court decision, they would have seen the statement that Justice Kagan made, and that is that this is dividing the Federal appellate courts. She raised the question: Does car burglary qualify as a violent felony under 16(b)? She indicated that some courts say yes, some courts say no.

She went on to say, residential trespass, what is that? The same is true. She went on to say, it does not exhaust the conflict in the courts.

Well, you don't answer the conflict by doing as was stated in the Families Against Mandatory Minimums letter dated September 6. On substantive grounds, H.R. 6691 has the potential to have severe unintended consequences on sentencing in our justice system writ large.

Under this bill, seemingly nonviolent offenses will be considered violent offenses, for example, under H.R. 6691, burglary of an unoccupied home. How many teenagers--I am not condoning that--may we find in an unoccupied home? I am not condoning burglary, but it would be considered a violent offense.

Burglary is a serious offense, but should it be considered violent if the perpetrator does not even interact with another person? Yes, they should be prosecuted. But you have in this bill violent offense.

Then, of course, in this legislation, legal service providers who filed an amicus brief, these are the guys and ladies who are our public defenders who see these people every day--the indigent, and many of them minority--they wind up, as everyone says, up the road in these large, massive prisons, and their lives are ruined because we have not fixed the criminal justice system.

Legal service providers who filed the amicus brief in the Dimaya case described the different applications of subsection (b) of section 16 across Federal circuits, using the example of residential trespass, which was considered a crime of violence by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals but not by the Seventh Circuit. This bill does little to resolve the inconsistent way courts apply the crime of violence based on subsection (b) because it includes vague definitions of offenses and creates definitions for the same crimes that differ from those currently in the criminal code.

That is a denial of due process, and that is not taking on this important issue. As was mentioned, there is a list of important elements. I support the fact that these are difficult and a terrible dilemma. But it can be done in a manner that is preferable, and that is through unceasing commitment and effort.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are here today having different positions. I cannot yield to what will be claimed as individuals who do not understand how important this bill is when I know the young African American men and young men of color who are entrapped in this system, and that the better approach and the better angels are for us to do comprehensive criminal justice reform and, I might add, immigration reform as well.

But let me indicate that we support victims of crime, especially those who are victims of violent crimes. We want relief for them.

This bill dangerously leads to overcriminalization, and we should not take the task of amending the definition of ``crime of violence'' lightly.

In the Rules Committee, we addressed overcriminalization and mass incarceration. Representative Torres aptly stated that we should not proceed with haste, which will further exacerbate the overcrowdedness in our prisons.

One Member suggested, in the Rules Committee, just build prisons, that is how we stop this criminal siege, as indicated, even though the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics have indicated that crime is going down.

Yes, we have our concerns. Even conservative groups that work with these very complicated and important criminal justice reform issues, like the Cook Foundation and Right on Crime, do not agree that building more prisons is the answer. Right on Crime states that, by reducing excessive sentence lengths and holding nonviolent offenders accountable through prison alternatives, public safety can often be achieved.

We recognize that the violent perpetrators should be incarcerated. If that is the case, I would stand with my colleague.

I would also stand with the Mothers of the Movement who saw their sons gunned down, in that we need to have relief in that direction.

There are many issues of criminal justice reform that should be on this floor--as I mentioned, sentencing reduction and juvenile justice reform--but we have not come to that point.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote ``no,'' because as Justice Kagan said in her opinion, the interpretation of crime and violence has divided the Federal appellate courts because the answer is not obvious. Therefore, we must carefully consider the alternatives to the approach prepared in this bill. We must do more than eliminate vagueness. We must achieve a just and fair result.

Nothing in this Supreme Court opinion, nothing, says, go alone, put a bill on the floor for 1 week, give Members no chance to amend, try to deny due process, build more prisons, make sure that the disparities of those who go into our jails rises and goes up, rather than giving our young people opportunities, a fair chance, and justice. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the National Center

for Lesbian Rights, and immigrant rights organizations ranging from the National Immigrant Justice Center to others.

Mr. Speaker, I leave my colleagues with a simple challenge. The simple challenge is: Read the Constitution.

Vagueness can be the death of us. This bill is that kind of death, and I would hope that we would have the opportunity to do this as it should be: constitutionally sound and in a bipartisan way to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We support victims of crime, especially those who are victims of violent crime. But classifying particular offenses as crimes of violence has tremendous consequences for the individuals accused of committing them. This bill dangerously leads to over-criminalization and we should not take lightly the task of amending the definition of ``crime of violence.''

At Rules on Wednesday, we addressed over-criminalization and mass incarceration. Rep. Torres aptly stated that we should not proceed with haste, which will further exacerbate the over crowdedness in our prisons. Rep. Bucks responded that we should build more prisons to address that problem.

Even conservative groups that work with these very complicated and important criminal justice reform issues, like the Koch Foundation and Right on Crime, do not agree that building more prisons is the answer.

Right on Crime states, ``by reducing excessive sentence lengths and holding non-violent offenders accountable through prison alternatives, public safety can often be achieved.''

In a recent forum, the Koch Foundation stated, ``After four decades of increasing punitiveness and sky-rocketing levels of imprisonment, American incarceration rates have declined in many states over the past five years. In fact, a bipartisan consensus has emerged in favor of major criminal justice reforms that would reduce mass incarceration much further.''

The original spark for this coalition of ``unlikely bedfellows'' has come from a group of conservative leaders who emphasize a variety of different factors, ranging from economic, to

freedom, to religious groups embracing redemption and second chances.

The Koch Foundation went on to say, ``Although the 2016 presidential election temporarily halted this movement's momentum, the coalition has reemerged recently and seems prepared to make progress in 2018.''

So I disagree with the notion that we should build more prisons and not exercise due diligence to ensure that in responding to the Supreme Court's finding that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, that we are doing so in a well-informed, heavily-engaged and thoughtful manner.

Due to the seriousness of our criminal justice system, we should always use due care and give thorough considerations when amending the criminal code.

For all these reasons, I oppose this bill.

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I am proceeding under the assumption that we will conclude this pretty rapidly.

Once again, my Republican colleagues have decided that the best way to govern is through a rushed and closed process, all in an obvious attempt to throw red meat to their base. Let's not parse words. This is an ill-thought-out bill trying to score cheap political points with the Republican base.

Mr. Speaker, this bill takes up no small feat. It attempts to utterly redefine what is meant by ``crime of violence'' in our criminal code. Our need to revisit the definition is due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court has now twice held that what is known as the residual clause under this particular area of our criminal code is unconstitutional because it is so broad it violates a person's constitutional right to due process.

Such a reality does not invite this body's attention, but demands it. However, with that demand comes a great responsibility, a responsibility to take the time necessary to do it right; a responsibility to ensure that members of the committee of jurisdiction, and other Members of Congress, are consulted; a responsibility to ensure that

we hear from public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and criminal justice and immigration reform experts, for this bill touches upon all of these areas, and not one person, let alone an expert, has been consulted in the drafting of this bill, at least not in the light of day.

Ostensibly, this bill was dropped to address the Supreme Court decisions just noted, the most recent of which was handed down in April of this year. I presume the composition of the bill was started soon after the Court dropped its decision, and, therefore, the author had from that time until last Friday to prepare today's bill. I think it only fair, then, that we have a similar amount of time to consider such an important matter.

Of course, I know that is not going to happen. No, instead, my friends across the aisle have, once again, insisted on engaging in fly- by-night legislating and, in so doing, shutting out not only Democrats but Republicans, and not only Democrats and Republicans, but the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 96th closed rule of this session, and that is record-breaking in and of itself. That means that Members don't have an opportunity to have input to substantive legislation, and somehow or another, with no hearings, or any markup or anything, a measure like this is before us.

While home for the district work period, my constituents didn't talk to me about replacing the definition of a ``crime of violence'' in the Federal criminal code. They did talk to me about a number of circumstances, but they didn't talk to me about liquefied natural gas, one of the other bills the House is going to consider this week.

On the other hand, they did ask about what Congress is going to do to address the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country, including, regrettably, today, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

They asked about what Congress is doing to ensure that DACA, the Dream recipients, and temporary protected status holders have a pathway to citizenship, and they asked what Congress is going to do to address the Nation's need for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure.

And high among the things that I heard from my constituents was about the cost of drugs and the rising cost of insurance.

Let us also include with those very important issues, including today, there are nine legislative days until the government runs out of money. I had representatives from the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers visit me an hour and a half ago explaining to me what a government shutdown would do to that particular agency.

We once again are forced to stare down the very real possibility of another government shutdown. And what are my friends across the aisle doing to thwart that inevitability? Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, we have some serious issues to tackle, and so I am discouraged to be on the floor today focusing on yet another messaging bill. I call on my Republican friends to put their perplexing fear of governing aside in the final days before we leave Washington, so that we may get to the people's business.

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

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

We were supposed to have a speaker speak to the previous question, and she may not be here to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker, last night at the Rules Committee, I heard my colleague, Mr. Buck, discuss how one of the root causes of rising crime in this country is our broken education system.

And now I will say to the gentleman that Ms. Bonamici has arrived, and like him, she was just a little bit delayed. So she will speak to this issue once I finish my comments, and then that will be our only speaker, I would urge my friend.

I also would like to say, it is not often in this body that Members say that they made a mistake. In an exchange last night in dialogue with my friend from Colorado, he commented that Florida's violent crime had gone down, and I mistakenly said to him that he was in error.

He was correct. It has gone down. I indicated to him last night that I would speak with him more about it. And there are some particulars that I will share with him, not so much in this particular setting, but I will get a chance to talk to him. There are some things where crime did go up, and Florida still ranks fifth in the Nation in violent crime, but I do want to say to him that I was mistaken when I spoke last evening.

Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado about education, and I believe every Member of this House is concerned about the education of our children in this country. We are failing our younger generations. We need to make monumental strides in this country to better our education system, and I believe that starts with childcare.

And I always make a caveat there, because when I am asked about education at home, and my opponent brought it up often in the election that I was involved in, and I constantly reminded her that the Federal Government only provides less than 7 percent of the budgets of our local communities. So this is largely a matter where we talk a lot up here, but the local communities are where the rubber hits the road.

We need to make these strides because of the problems that we are seeing. We obviously need more pre-K, we obviously need more Head Start, but in the past decade, the cost of childcare has increased by 25 percent. In 33 States and the District of Columbia, infant care costs exceed the average cost of a 4-year in-state college tuition. This is a huge financial burden that is only worsening.

Mr. Speaker, families need access to a system that provides high quality, affordable early learning and care that will prepare children for success without breaking the bank.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Member Scott's bill, H.R. 3773, the Child Care for Working Families Act. This bill will establish a new Federal-State partnership to provide high quality, affordable childcare from birth through age 13.

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 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the committees of jurisdiction hold hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in the field are consulted, in a manner where members of both parties have an opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bills that come before this body.

None of that happened with today's bill.

Instead, for reasons beyond understanding, we have to vote on a bill that no person in this body had sufficient time to understand, let alone time to consider the far-reaching consequences it could have on people living in this country and on our Constitution. The fact that Republican leadership insists on governing in such a manner is, as always, as disappointing as, in my opinion, it is shameful.

Now, listen: 96 closed rules. I am fond of talking about when I first ran for Congress in 1992, the then leadership of the Republican Party did an effective job saying to the American public that the then leadership of the Democrats were having closed rules and closing out the process.

Newt Gingrich was the person that was the author of that, in many respects in retrospect, brilliant strategy. That was one of the tenets that he put forward, that it was not right for Democrats to have as many closed rules as they had at that time. I don't remember the exact number, it was a number, but it didn't come close to 96. And now, if we flip the script, what we have is 96 closed rules.

I serve on that Rules Committee with my friend from Colorado. And repeatedly, you look around this room, on an ordinary, regular order process, we would have at least five or six speakers on either side to substantive legislation, or we would have had an opportunity for Members to offer amendments that could have been considered in a germane or non-germane manner to be able to come out here on the floor.

The American people are being shut out, not just Republicans and Democrats. It is not right, and we shouldn't go forward that way.

I promise you that we are doing a disservice when we do not allow for measures of this consequence. We don't know what the outcome of this is going to be.

I can't disagree with a thing my friend from Colorado said with reference to the measure and the clarification that is needed after the two Supreme Court decisions, but please know this: the proper way to do that would have been for the committee of jurisdiction to hold hearings and then to have a markup and then come to the Rules Committee. But what we saw was, bam, right straight to the Rules Committee, no hearings, no markup, no experts, no prosecutors, no public defenders, no input, and the public not having an opportunity to participate. It is wrong.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1051, I call up the bill (H.R. 6691) to amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify the definition of ``crime of violence'', 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. 6691.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6691, the Community Safety and Security Act of 2018. This legislation provides critical clarity to the definition of ``crime of violence'' in the United States Code in order to keep violent criminals off the streets and ensure the safety of our communities.

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Dimaya, the term ``crime of violence'' was determined to be unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to act to provide the necessary clarity in the law that allows our law enforcement and our judicial systems to work and, importantly, to protect the victims of these violent crimes.

The Community Safety and Security Act of 2018 provides that clarity by precisely and legally defining the phrase ``crime of violence'' and the related criminal acts that, when combined with the element of force are, indeed, considered violent.

They include crimes such as voluntary manslaughter, attempted kidnapping, lewd acts upon a child, sexual assault, assault on a police officer, domestic violence, murder, and all other crimes that a normal, regular individual would think of as a violent crime, as well as human trafficking.

In my State of Georgia, metro Atlanta is well known as a haven for human and sex trafficking, and as a recruiting center for vulnerable young people. In 2017 alone, it was reported that nearly 3,600 females and more than 600 males were trafficked. These are just the reported cases. Thousands more go unreported every year.

This legislation that I bring forward today provides essential legal clarity to ensure that crimes like human trafficking and others in the bill are deemed legally as crimes of violence.

Failure to address this issue would foster vagueness and uncertainty in our courts, and potentially disrupt the prosecution of certain crimes of violence, like human trafficking, child abuse, domestic violence, and other acts that any reasonable individual would consider a crime of violence.

This legislation has the support of a number of organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations.

In a recent letter to Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi, the Fraternal Order of Police noted that ``there are numerous convictions and pending cases that would be jeopardized'' in the wake of the Dimaya decision.

The Community Safety and Security Act of 2018 is another step that we, as Congress, can take, that we must take, in order to make our communities the safest that they can possibly be. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Texas, I want to say good morning to her as well and also recognize her significant efforts in criminal justice reform, and indeed I was proud to be able to support that recent piece of legislation that came through our committee as well.

A couple of points. I very much appreciate the concerns that have been raised, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you that this law, as crafted, does not go beyond the scope contemplated when Section 16 was originally crafted.

This is a responsible, carefully crafted piece of legislation that does what the United States Supreme Court recommended. It enumerates what crimes are crimes of violence so that there can be no vagueness and people know what the law is. In fact, it goes to protect due process, Mr. Speaker.

This is our responsibility as legislators. And indeed, Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence, given the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, and indeed

there would be substantial harmful effects if we fail as Congress to act today on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I certainly appreciate my colleagues and the fact that they have read the bill so very thoroughly.

I must reiterate, however, that this legislation is not overly broad. In fact, it specifically maintains the status quo. And we drew those lines because

we crafted the bill to maintain that status quo.

The legislation will not be able to fix some of the outrageous injustices that have occurred when courts have found certain offenses do not qualify as crimes of violence. For example, where a defendant who has a conviction for sexual abuse escapes more serious consequences because the State's sexual abuse statute also encompasses certain consensual conduct and, therefore, it was not categorically a crime of violence even when and where this particular defendant committed horrific acts that were most certainly not consensual.

Some of these injustices must be fixed through State legislation. We refrained specifically from expanding the law, despite the very human desire to want to fix these kinds of injustices and recognizing that the States have the duty to fix this.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, does affect people's lives. Specifically, it is going to affect the lives of individuals who are victims of violent crimes.

A couple more points have been raised. First of all, on the issue of fleeing, we have heard the concerns that the written text is a little bit too broad on fleeing. Well, let me just correct that. Courts have found fleeing to be a crime of violence. This is not an expansion. This applies only in vehicles. It is not on foot.

The Seventh Circuit called this specific conduct ``inherently aggressive.'' The 11th Circuit reasoned that ``fleeing from law enforcement, an individual has already resorted to an extreme measure to avoid arrest, signaling that he is likely prepared to resort to the use of physical force.''

So, Mr. Speaker, we approach this bill with great diligence. Time, as I said, is of the essence, given the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. We heard from the police officers association that they are very concerned about the fact that pending cases and convictions could be effective if Congress does not act. Indeed, substantial harm will occur if we fail to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, just one clarification to the most recent comments. The part that was left out in those comments was the fact that it would apply only if a violent crime is committed.

May I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to make the point that time really is of the essence in being able to protect due process and, equally and perhaps more importantly, being able to protect victims of certain violent crimes.

For example, right now, today, under Fourth Circuit precedent, sex trafficking is not considered a crime of violence; and I think that most of us would all agree that sex trafficking is, indeed, a crime of violence.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me address the criticism regarding burglary being too broad in the way it is addressed in the legislation. This is the Federal generic definition of burglary and one that courts have found satisfies the definition of ``crime of violence.''

Mr. Speaker, the detractors of this fail to recognize that these definitions are not an expansion of actual State laws but only seek to cover the generic definition and reasonable iterations found in State law.

In fact, prior to the Dimaya Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court had previously unanimously agreed in Leocal v. Ashcroft that ``burglary is the classic example of a crime of violence under subsection 16(b).''

The Community Safety and Security Act of 2018 is a necessary, crucial piece of legislation that will fix a major loophole in our system. We squarely address the issues raised by the United States Supreme Court, eliminating the vagueness, giving notice, and explaining which offenses Congress intended to cover when they had first crafted the language in clause 16(b) from the very beginning.

By moving the legislation, we are avoiding potentially dangerous consequences of giving very serious, dangerous criminals a pass. We have examined the case law surrounding these offenses; we have considered the equities; we have been deliberative; and we have shown great restraint in many ways.

Congress cannot sit idly by and allow criminals to disrupt our communities because of this loophole. This bill is a product of necessity, and we do not have the privilege to squabble over hypotheticals that ultimately have no bearing on real-life applications of this law. We must move to protect our communities to prevent more victims of crime.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleagues that this bill is not overly broad. It is not, as some have irresponsibly stated, a ``dangerous expansion of criminal law.'' Instead, it is a carefully crafted response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recommendations in the Dimaya case. Frankly, it is just the sort of bill that our system was designed to produce.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this bill. Vote ``yes,'' and in doing so, demonstrate to your constituents your commitment to protecting law-abiding Americans from violent criminals. It is a simple choice. Make the correct one and vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order one bill dealing with a pressing legal issue.

Mr. Speaker, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, an immigrant convicted of certain felonies is subject to deportation. In order to qualify for this particular provision of the INA, an immigrant must be convicted of a crime of violence.

The statute defines ``crime of violence'' as an offense that, ``by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.''

This has been a longstanding and roundly accepted policy of the U.S. Government. For years, we have deported dangerous criminal immigrants.

However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that how the law defined ``crime of violence'' was impermissibly vague. The result of the ruling threw all of these kinds of deportation cases into question.

Historically, this realm of immigration law has never been an area of law to which the Court has applied constitutional rights. But writing the ruling for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan applied due process rights afforded by the Constitution to the removal process of criminal immigrants. Because the Court applied the Constitution in this manner, it concluded that the term ``crime of violence'' could be applied arbitrarily and unpredictably.

Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the path down which this ruling could lead as it pertains to other provisions of Federal criminal law. In fact, his concerns were justifiable.

In May, the Tenth Circuit struck down a similar provision in another portion of Federal law relating to using weapons in the commission of a crime. That particular case resulted in the sentence of a man convicted for firebombing a store with a Molotov cocktail being vacated.

Then again, in August, the D.C. Circuit struck down convictions of two men who were convicted for a violent criminal act. This ruling opened up the possibility that convictions for criminal acts involving firearms can be overturned.

Mr. Speaker, this is the backdrop against which we consider this bill today. This legislation, the Community Safety and Security Act, plugs the gaps in Federal law created by these recent court rulings.

It specifies the circumstances by which a criminal offense should be construed as a crime of violence. In particular, a crime of violence will include crimes of murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, domestic violence, human trafficking, and many other types of violent acts.

By clearly outlining Congress' intent of what constitutes a violent crime, this bill will eliminate the Court's concerns about ambiguity and will allow our law enforcement agencies to continue carrying out their duties to protect the American public.

Mr. Speaker, law and order is a crucial component of a healthy society. We are beginning to see the effects of feel-good policies in some locales on the crime rate in those areas, particularly the violent crime rate. When law and order breaks down in our communities, the residents suffer.

I am confident there is no intention to erode law and order or embolden criminals. However, the effects are just the same. That is why this legislation is so critical.

We need to ensure that there is a clear definition of violent crime, so that courts across this country are not boxed in by this Supreme Court ruling and do not have to vacate sentences or release violent criminals onto our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent more than 2 decades fighting crime, both at the Federal level and in my own community. The impact of crime, and violent crime in particular, on victims is heartbreaking. Watching someone suffer the worst of societal ills is bad enough when justice is served. But watching a victim suffer not just the crime, but the lack of justice, is infuriating.

We need to fix this loophole carved by these rulings and defend our communities from criminals. We need to stand up for victims of violent crime and see that the justice that we all want for them is served.

I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of my friend. I have no Members here to speak, and I am prepared to close if my friend is.

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

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

I appreciate my friend from Florida and his views on open and closed rules and the importance of open rules and the importance of amendments and the importance to an open process.

The fact is the Democrats continue to focus on closed rules versus open rules, ignoring the structured amendment process, which has routinely been used by both majorities.

If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to clarify a couple of points for the record. Sixteen of the closed rules cited by the minority were rolling back regulations under the Congressional Review Act, which does not allow for amendments, to ensure that only a majority vote is required in the Senate.

Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the majority put out a call for amendments but received no amendments.

And if my friends from the other side of the aisle believe that open rules are the only measure of success, it is only fair that we clarify for the American people the Democrat majority's record.

In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing open to closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. This majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a Democrat sponsor and/or cosponsor.

In fact, as of July 24, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress, in which we serve now, have provided for the consideration of over 1,650 amendments on the House floor; over 745 Democrat amendments, or 45 percent of the total number of amendments; over 630 Republican amendments or 38 percent of the total amendments; and over 280 bipartisan amendments, or 17 percent of the total amendments.

In the 114th Congress, the last Congress to have served, the Republican majority allowed over 1,700 amendments to be considered on the House floor.

In the 113th Congress the Republican majority allowed over 1,500 amendments to be considered on the House floor.

And in the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.

I just wanted to make sure that we put into perspective the arguments from my friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is really fairly simple. Law and order is being jeopardized as it relates to the term, ``crime of violence.'' This bill plugs the gap left in our laws by the court's ruling.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different viewpoints across this country about our criminal justice and immigration system, but there are two nearly universally held beliefs by Americans: one, criminals should receive justice; and two, criminal immigrants should be deported.

While we can debate many aspects of our criminal code, we must not waiver in our commitment to protect the American people from criminals and to bring justice to victims. There have been numerous cases lately of immigrants committing violent crimes against Americans. Some of these cases are too recent to even mention by name here today. We must stand with victims and their families and remove criminal immigrants from this country. It is unjust to do anything else.

Our country is great, in part, because of our commitment to law and order. It is wrong to pursue a softening of our response to violent crime. To do so would invite more crime and produce more victims.

We must uphold the rule of law in America. Americans want it. Americans deserve it. That is exactly what this bill does. It defines violent crimes so that our immigration and criminal justice systems will have the tools necessary to remove violent immigrants from our country.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this bill. Uphold law and order. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the resolution. And vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Handel for bringing this forth, this very important piece of legislation that has been reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya ruled that 18 U.S.C. Section 16 was unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

That is the way the process works. We, the legislators, write the law, not an unelected bureaucrat. We, as legislators, are supposed to write the law, then the court interprets that law if an issue is brought before the court, as in this particular case.

So there is a several-page slip opinion, we call it, that explains why the court ruled the way it did, saying we need more of an explanation as to what a violent crime is. The court ruled that the statute in question failed to properly provide a definition for a crime of violence.

H.R. 6691 eliminates that vagueness and addresses the Supreme Court's concerns and preserves the pre-Dimaya status quo.

It has the support of the Justice Department.

The legislation before us today is supported by the Department of Justice, I want to reemphasize that, and will properly define what a crime of violence is. It is clearly delineated here in eight pages, the crimes, what constitutes them, the meaning, the intent, crime by crime on these pages. It does not prevent anyone from due process.

As a former Federal prosecutor and State prosecutor, I have seen serious violent crimes that were committed. And we must make sure that those that are here illegally and commit these violent crimes be sent back to their countries from where they came.

Over 18 years as a prosecutor, I have seen my share of bodies on slabs in morgues because of violent crime, and many of those were young kids.

This legislation defines crime by crime by crime and sets forth the criteria that the legislature was responsible for doing in the first place.

I want to explain the process on how this works. The crime is committed, it is reported, law enforcement goes in and does an investigation. If they feel that a crime has been committed, they file a complaint or go to the DA or go to the United States Attorney and present probable cause, evidence that the crime probably was committed. And then, in whatever situation, whether it is the State or the Federal level, there can be an indictment, the evidence can go before a grand jury, and then the decision is made if it proceeds. Then that individual goes before a judge on a preliminary hearing to the point where the person's actual constitutional rights kick in. None of that, none of that is eliminated.

I support this legislation because of what I have seen over my career. And taking care of issues of violence that we see so much of and the violence that we see, particularly by individuals that are here illegally, this remedies that matter.

We have a lot of violence in this country committed by people that are citizens, and we take care of that through the judicial system as well.

But this is commonsense legislation. It addresses the issue immediately and it does what the American people want it to do.

There is due process, but if you are here illegally, you commit a violent crime, and once that is established, then you are sent back to your country of origin.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some clarifications. First of all, I am tired of hearing from the other side that bills are rushed through, bills are pushed through, there is no thought put into this, which is nothing more than a red herring.

The Supreme Court said that the term ``crime of violence'' is not specific enough. So what we did was we put into this new statute this new law explaining what murder is, and voluntary manslaughter, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual abuse, child abuse, kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, firearms use, burglary, arson, extortion, communication of threats, and fleeing.

These are already laws that have been on the books for two decades. The Court just simply said it wants the specifics in the legislation for removing someone who is here illegally and who has committed one of these crimes.

Now, let's go into this. They are making, again, a red herring, a big deal, out of this term ``fleeing.'' Now, all the crimes, plus there were many more in here that I didn't have time to go over, explain and define those.

One thing I want to talk about in ``fleeing'' is, it is not if a person is speeding and an officer wants to stop that person and the person drives a little longer to find a safe place to pull over. That is absurd.

Here is the term. ``Fleeing'' means knowingly operating a motor vehicle and, following a law enforcement officer's signal to bring the motor vehicle to a stop: A, failing or refusing to comply; or, B, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer.

The term ``force'' means the level of force capable of physical pain or injury, or needed or intended to overcome resistance.

That means that that individual is fleeing in that automobile at a high rate of speed to get away from the officer because they don't want to be caught, and that person could cause much more havoc, much more danger and death, to somebody else if, when they are fleeing, they cause an accident.

My colleagues on the other side leave out these important details. It is all listed here. It is very specific. It is exactly what the Court asked for, and this is good law.