Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3004) to amend section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to reentry of removed aliens, and providing for proceedings during the period from July 3, 2017, through July 10, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 percent of the people who would go to jail if this bill is enacted, they are not criminals and have no brush with the law. They were people who lived here for years, who had no chance of coming legally in the first place, and no way to get legal once they were here. Most have lived here for 10, 20, 30 years. They live in families with children, and their children are citizens of the United States just like you and me and our children. They have mortgages and car notes.

The problems these moms and dads are trying to solve is if they get deported, how do I make sure my kids are safe in the country in which they were born, the United States? How do I keep a roof over their head and get them ready for school? How do I keep my business open or my career continuing in the U.S. where I have lived, in some cases, for decades?

That is the problem they have, and guess what, they come back after they are deported. That person, to me, is not a felon, never committed a crime. That person is not a hardened criminal, never killed anyone.

That is a parent fighting for their family.

So in painting a picture of all immigrants as resembling a career criminal, like the guy who killed Kate Steinle, Republicans are doing the old bait and switch.

The people we are hitting with this bill come back to the lives they have built over decades by the only means we have made available, and now we are going to add a felony and 15 years to that.

Let's give moms and dads different alternatives. The people who would go to jail if this bill were enacted would rather have come with a visa. They would get in line for hours to get legal if there were a line to get in, but there isn't, and most Americans believe we should create such a line for them. They would come back legally if they could, but they can't.

We should be looking at how to solve that problem. We should be looking at ways to eliminate illegal immigration, and stop hoping that our strategy of the last 30 years of deportation, more restriction, and more criminalization would somehow miraculously start working.

It hasn't. It won't. It is time for us to enact comprehensive immigration reform in the Congress and to fulfill our responsibility to the Nation.

Look, the question today isn't whether or not this bill is going to pass. It is going to pass. The Republicans are making it a primary purpose.

The question really, for me, is: Are Democrats going to participate? Are Democrats going to participate in allowing this to pass?

I have just got to say that I know it is difficult.

Some people say: Well, I might not come back.

It will be difficult. My constituents demand this.

Well, let me just say that when I was elected in 1986 to the Chicago City Council, I was there but a month and they had the human rights bill for the gay and lesbian community. I remember the banner headlines: ``Cardinal Says `No.' ''

Here I was a Catholic all my life, an altar boy, had three of the seven Catholic rites: communion, baptism, and marriage. Ten years later, I got to the Congress and was confronted here with the Defense of Marriage Act. We passed it. There were only about 70 of us who voted against it.

But guess what. Thirty years after I took that vote for gay rights in the Chicago City Council, the Supreme Court said that marriage equality was the law of the land and discriminating against them was against the Constitution of the United States of America.

That is the way you create social justice, not by doing a poll and not by trying to figure out what the next election consequences are going to be.

I say to my Democratic colleagues: Stand up for social justice today.

It wasn't easy as a Democrat to stand up for reproductive rights for women. I remember going to church and I remember being chastised by the priest. I remember being booed by some of the congregants as I left that church. But I stood up for what I believe are women's rights. My children were chased down the street during Halloween by pro-choice people who said I didn't deserve to be trick-or-treating with my children, that I was a bad father and I was a murderer. We stood up, and women have rights in this country.

That is the way we do that, Democrats. We stand up for what is right. We don't take a poll, and we don't think of the next election. We do what is right.

The immigrant community is looking for champions today, and it is my hope that, as Democrats, we, too, will stand up. When hate visits you, you need to repudiate it. You need to repudiate it because that hate might visit you in some personal way and it might cause you to hate yourself ultimately.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement in opposition to the bill from the Tahirih Justice Center.

Tahirih Justice Center,

Falls Church, VA, June 27, 2017.

Statement of the Tahirih Justice Center

Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and

``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)

The Tahirih Justice Center (``Tahirih'') respectfully

submits this statement to the United States House of

Representatives as it considers ``The No Sanctuary for

Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003; ``The Act'') and ``Kate's Law''

(H.R. 3004). The House Rules Committee is set to review these

bills today, followed by the full House in the near future.

Tahirih is a national, nonpartisan organization that has

assisted over 20,000 immigrant survivors of gender-based

violence over the past 20 years. Our clients include women

and girls who have endured horrific abuses such as rape and

human trafficking and are in dire need of humanitarian

relief.

Tahirih urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003 and

3004: By further entangling federal and local immigration

enforcement, H.R. 3003 will not only put survivors of human

trafficking and domestic violence at greater risk of criminal

harm, but will embolden violent criminals who pose a danger

to us all. H.R. 3004 will unjustly punish asylum seekers who

sought safe haven in the U.S., but were improperly denied

access to the asylum process the first time around.

H.R. 3003: The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: The Act

seeks to erase the distinction between federal and local

immigration enforcement. Such measures erode immigrant

community trust of police, who rely on victims and witnesses

to help get dangerous criminals off the streets. When

immigrants know they can call 911 without fear of

deportation, it is perpetrators--not victims or their

children--that are deterred and punished. Abusers and

traffickers deliberately manipulate and isolate victims to

limit their access to information about their legal rights.

Despite longstanding protections under the Violence Against

Women Act, even victims who hold lawful immigration status

succumb to intimidation, and remain afraid of deportation if

they come forward. For some survivors, deportation means

sentencing a US citizen child to the custody of a violent

abuser. Following the recent passage of a state law to

increase local immigration enforcement, a client aptly noted,

``This is exactly what [my abuser] has been waiting for.'' We

are all less safe when we make it easier for perpetrators to

commit crimes.

The Act will also increase prolonged detention of

survivors, resulting in further traumatization, separation

from young children, and limited access to legal assistance

and due process. The Act also punishes localities that refuse

to comply, by revoking critical funding for core programs

that address gun violence, gang violence, and other criminal

activity. When local agencies must ``choose'' between

continuing these programs and compromising community trust,

it is the public that pays the steepest price.

H.R. 3004: Kate's Law: Tahirih and other advocates

routinely assist clients whose initial requests for asylum at

the border are met with hostility, intimidation, and

coercion. These individuals are unlawfully denied access to

the asylum process by U.S. officials. With their lives in

grave danger, women and girls in this situation have no

choice but to request safe haven in the U.S. a second or even

third time. They are not asking to appeal denial of their

claims; rather, they are merely seeking a threshold

determination that they may apply for asylum or related

protections. Our domestic laws and international humanitarian

obligations require that they have this opportunity. H.R.

3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse who persist in

their quest for asylum by limiting their ability to challenge

initial, unlawful removals, and by unnecessarily and unjustly

subjecting them to criminal prosecution.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer this statement in

opposition to H.R. 3003 and 3004, and we urge Congress to

unequivocally reject these harmful bills that undermine the

safety of survivors of gender-based violence.

Archi Pyati,

Director of Policy and Programs.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Human Rights First: American Ideals. Universal Values.

Human Rights First,

June 28, 2017.

Re H.R. 3004--115th Congress (2017-2018).

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose H.R.

3004 (``Kate's Law'') and any similar legislation that would

have severely negative consequences for asylum seekers and

refugees fleeing persecution.

H.R. 3004 seeks to expand the scope of immigrants who may

be prosecuted for unlawful reentry and further expands

penalties for those who are convicted. But the criminal

prosecution of asylum seekers for offenses such as illegal

entry, illegal reentry, and document fraud violates U.S.

treaty obligations and risks sending genuine refugees back to

their countries of persecution.

For one, many asylum seekers are forced to ``reenter'' the

United States because they were wrongfully deported in the

first place through the expedited removal system. The U.S.

Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), as

well as Human Rights First and other groups, has long

documented deficiencies and flaws in the implementation of

the expedited removal process, a summary process which gives

immigration officers the authority to order non-citizens

deported without a hearing. In its 2005 report on expedited

removal, USCIRF found that in a significant number of cases,

border agents failed to follow U.S. law and refer asylum

seekers to the ``credible fear'' process, even when USCIRF

researchers were present during the secondary inspection

process.

Even when border agents make the proper referral for a

credible fear screening, asylum seekers are often traumatized

and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries,

their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S.

authorities. They are often interviewed by telephone by an

officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of

interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that

hinder communication. As a result, some may incorrectly be

found to not have a credible fear, and may be deported as a

result. These asylum seekers must then ``reenter'' the United

States after facing continuing persecution in their home

countries to seek protection yet again.

Moreover, H.R. 3004 would redefine ``reentry'' to encompass

an even broader group of individuals, as it will define

reentry as including cases of individuals who had been

previously denied admission. Human Rights First release a

report in May 2017, titled Crossing the Line, which documents

cases of asylum seekers who have been turned back at U.S.

ports of entry, despite stating to border agents that they

had a fear of persecution or intended to seek asylum. While

DHS officials have acknowledged that border agents should be

following U.S. law and referring asylum seekers to the asylum

process, Human Rights First and other groups have found that

this practice continues. H.R. 3004 seeks to penalize an

overly broad group of individuals that would even include

those who were wrongfully turned away from our ports of entry

in violation of U.S. law.

Secondly, prosecuting asylum seekers for their illegal

entry or presence--even in the case of ``reentry''--is a

violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention and

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of

the Refugee Convention requires that states refrain from

imposing ``penalties'' on refugees on account of their

illegal entry or presence in the country where they are

seeking asylum. For this reason, in 2015, the U.S. Department

of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that

prosecutions under ``Operation Streamline'' may place the

United States in violation of its treaty obligations.

If Congress passes H.R. 3004, more asylum seekers like

Maria will be subjected to wrongful criminal prosecutions.

``Maria,'' a transgender woman from Honduras, who had been

raped and subjected to other sexual violence, fled to the

United States in 2014. U.S. immigration officials failed to

respond to her requests for asylum and she was deported back

to Honduras through expedited removal without ever seeing an

immigration judge or having her fear of persecution assessed

by an asylum officer. Facing ongoing persecution in Honduras,

she fled to the United States again in 2015, and was

apprehended upon entry. U.S. border agents referred her for

criminal prosecution and she was convicted of illegal

reentry. After she was transferred back to immigration

custody, she was determined to be a ``refugee'' who qualified

for withholding of removal. Yet, the United States had

already penalized her for ``illegal entry'' despite being a

refugee.

Please contact Olga Byrne at Human Rights First if you have

any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your time

and consideration.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Acer,

Senior Director, Refugee Protection.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from Cities for Action.

Cities for Action,

June 28, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a

coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that

advocates for policies to promote the well-being of our

foreign born residents. Our coalition, representing over 50

million residents, has a considerable interest in protecting

all our residents and ensuring that immigrants are not

unjustly criminalized. We are writing to you today to urge

that you oppose Representative Goodlatte's bill, H.R. 3004,

Kate's Law.

Kate's Law expands already tough penalties for illegal

reentry and allows the government to detain immigrants

indefinitely without bond or a court hearing. It also

mistakenly implies that illegal reentry cases are under-

enforced. Indeed, illegal reentry prosecutions already

account for 52 percent of all federal prosecutions. H.R. 3004

would make the criminal sentences for reentry extremely

harsh. Additionally, it would impose severe sentencing

enhancements on people with minor offenses who reenter the

country.

H.R. 3004 would also limit the ability to challenge the

validity of any prior removal order that forms the basis for

a prosecution for illegal reentry, subjecting people to

prosecution even in cases where the prior order was issued

without due process or was otherwise flawed. In addition, the

bill does not provide adequate protections for people who

reenter the United States for humanitarian reasons or those

who seek protection at the border, putting asylum seekers and

families at risk.

Cities and counties are opposed to this bill because these

measures do not improve public safety and it is based on a

false premise that immigrants pose a threat to our

communities. Local governments have a strong interest in

protecting all residents and maintaining public safety.

Therefore, we urge you to oppose Kate's Law and stop its

passage into law at every possible turn.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,

Cities for Action.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Charities USA.

June 26, 2017.

Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on

Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/

COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our

opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.

The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare

of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our

parishes include those with and without immigration status,

unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of

crime in the United States, including domestic violence,

armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of

fostering cooperation and information-sharing between

immigrant communities and local law enforcement.

We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on

local governments that we fear--and that many of them have

warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law

enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local

law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure

public safety in all communities.

Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to

jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law

enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and

naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-

compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network,

including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the

federal government on a number of Department of Justice and

Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including

disaster response and recovery, naturalization and

citizenship services, and services for the immigrant,

including victims of human trafficking, and domestic

violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the

protection and promotion of the human person and in some

instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these

important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not

humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.

Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion

of incarceration and does not include adequate protections

for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or

seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable

efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent

criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal

by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal

re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in

these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that

important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to

prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent

crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry

or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does

not advance the common good nor will it ensure that

communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as

introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum

seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented

themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from

violence), from being able to access protection, and instead

face fines, imprisonment or both.

We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of

a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration

reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family

unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs

and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and

security.

The United States has a long and proud history of

leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their

circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready

to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to

this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of

our views in this regard.

Sincerely,

Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,

Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD,

President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from Friends Committee on National Legislation: A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest.

Friends Committee on

National Legislation,

June 27, 2017.

Friends Committee on National Legislation Statement in Opposition to

the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R.

3004)

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is a

Quaker lobby in the public interest committed to pursuing

policies that build just societies, peaceful communities, and

equitable relationships among all people. FCNL looks to

Congress to legislate on immigration in a manner that honors

the value of immigrants and American citizens alike and urges

congressional representatives to reject any legislation which

would undermine immigrant families and communities. Congress

is tasked with creating lasting solutions for our nation.

FCNL therefore urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003

and H.R. 3004 which together further criminalize immigrants,

expand detention, undermine community well-being, and offer

no legislative remedy for a punitive and outdated immigration

system.

H.R. 3003 is an extreme interior enforcement proposal that

would affect over 600 cities, counties, and states and raises

serious fourth and tenth amendment concerns. Effective

policing depends on building authentic trust between police

officers and the communities they serve; blurring the lines

between federal immigration enforcement and local police

results in fewer reported crimes and makes communities with

large immigrant populations more vulnerable. Perpetrators of

crime, assault, and abuse know that these communities are

less likely to report the crime if they legitimately fear it

will result in the deportation or detention of an immigrant

neighbor, a loved one, or themselves. Law enforcement

officials and advocates for survivors of domestic violence

agree that the proposals included in this bill would be

damaging for the communities they serve. FCNL heeds this call

to ensure safety for the most vulnerable among us, and urges

members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003.

H.R. 3004 would expand grounds for indefinite detention and

decrease legal opportunities for certain migrants challenging

their removal. Our call as Quakers to welcome the stranger

does not rest on the legal status of any individual.

Criminalizing entire immigrant communities based on the

senseless actions of a few individuals tears at the moral

fabric of our society and will not make our communities

safer. H.R. 3004 could prevent migrants from adequately

accessing asylum and would increase family hardship through

separation by offering no meaningful opportunity for family

members to pursue a legal route when seeking reunification

across borders. These provisions will only fuel the

brokenness of our system, which is already heavy-handed on

indefinite detention and dangerous deportations at great

expense to U.S. taxpayers and our collective moral

conscience. Thousands of faith leaders have urged members of

Congress to reject similar proposals in the past and live up

to our call to minister to all those in need, especially

those who have been marginalized. In keeping, FCNL urges

members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3004.

FCNL looks instead for legislation that proceeds from a

recognition of the inherent worth of all individuals, as

acknowledged in our Quaker faith, as well as in our shared

Constitution, laws, and American values. We call on Congress

to reform the U.S. immigration system so that it is in line

with the Quaker principle to answer to that of God in

everyone and ensures we live up to our legacy as a country

that thrives because we are a nation of diverse peoples and

immigrants. Congress has the opportunity to enact practical

solutions for comprehensive reform that includes clear and

workable processes for legal entry and eventual citizenship.

FCNL is eager to partner on such efforts, and seek the

fundamental policy changes we need to help U.S. communities

truly prosper.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

June 27, 2017.

Dear Representative Conyers: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic

Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No

Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law''

(H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of

Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a

county that prides itself on being the land of welcome and

opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect

our shared values.

As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration

reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million

undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an

enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps

people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress,

localities across the country still have the responsibility

to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill

this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual

trust to root out crime and promote public safety,

encouraging community members to cooperate with local

authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.

3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will

make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the

hearts of our immigrant families.

Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize

immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the

United States, and often are simply trying to be reunited

with their family. Punishing immigrants for wanting to

provide for their families with fines and imprisonment is

harsh and cruel--we, as a nation, are called to be better

than that. Again, we ask Congress to abandon the

``enforcement first'' policies that have been the de facto

U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, yielding too many

costs and too few results. Our antiquated system that does

not accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation

today does not serve our national interests and does not

respect the basic human rights of migrants who come to this

nation fleeing persecution or in search of employment for

themselves and better living conditions for their children.

Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not

pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political

leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for

international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity

and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over

fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all

individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor

and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that

further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to

immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of

refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that

we, as Americans, strive to uphold.

Sincerely,

Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS,

Executive Director, NETWORK Lobby

for Catholic Social Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The bill is part of a larger mass deportation bill marked up by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I think the message it is intended to convey is that this bill is needed to keep us safe.

We have heard the sad story of the murder of Kate Steinle, which was not news to any of us in northern California. That was a horrible murder, and the fact is, this bill would not have prevented that murder. The offender had been deported multiple times. He had served 16 years in Federal prison, so the idea that the 10-year enhancement would have somehow fixed this is just misplaced.

When we talk about the bill, it is as if we don't have harsh penalties now for misbehavior in the law. If you take a look at the enhancements, it expands criminal sentences for individuals who reenter the country after removal. We already have very strong penalties against that.

To say that this bill will keep us safe because, for example, we have a 20-year--under current law, a 20-year sentence for a conviction for an aggravated felony, this would raise it to 25; I don't think that is going to fix this problem. If it were only that, we could have a discussion which, unfortunately, we never did on a bipartisan basis.

The bill does other things that are very damaging. It actually makes it a felony, punishable by up to 2 years, to attempt to reenter the country legally, in full compliance with our immigration laws; and this is true for individuals who have no criminal background whatsoever.

Now, the sponsors of the bill may argue that is necessary, but I have seen no rationale for why that would make any sense, nor why it would certainly not have prevented the tragic murder of Kate Steinle.

Now, let's give some examples of who that could apply to. You have individuals who have lived here, we have met them, DREAMers, people who have been here all their lives, brought over as children, who were removed. If that person who has been removed becomes a victim of sex trafficking, the process is this: They can come and seek asylum. They can flee from their traffickers. And if they present themselves to our port of entry today, they are not trying to evade detection. No, they are trying to be found. They are turning themselves in, saying: I am fleeing from the sex traffickers; I want to make a claim for asylum; I need to be kept safe from the sex traffickers. This bill would make that act a felony.

Now, the chairman has said how wonderful it is that we have created an affirmative defense in the act. What he has neglected to mention is that right now we don't need an affirmative defense because it is not a crime to go to the port of entry and seek a benefit, either humanitarian parole for a purpose that is sometimes granted to travel if a member of your family is dying, to provide an organ donation to a member, an American citizen, who is in the U.S. who is dying. That is not a crime today, and you don't need an affirmative defense because it is not a crime.

Now, I think the fact that it eliminates an important constitutional provision is problematic. We all know we can't change the Constitution by statute. The case of U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez basically says this: If you are going to prosecute somebody for entry after removal, which happens all the time--in fact, that is the single most prevalent Federal prosecution in the system today; that is number one--you have to--and you did not have an opportunity to actually contest the first removal because, for example, you were never notified at a hearing----

Since that is an element of the offense, the Mendoza case says you have to be able to at least collaterally attack that because you never had a chance to do so initially. This eliminates that constitutional case. You can't do that by statute.

So the point I am making is that the majority of those who enter the United States without inspection are coming back to try and get next to their families, their U.S. citizen kids, their U.S. citizen spouses. They are not criminals. They are not creating any kind of crime.

We all oppose crime, but this remedy is unrelated to the horror stories that we have heard.

You know, we are creating law here, not bumper stickers. I hope that we will vote against this misplaced law and work together to solve the real problems that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this bill from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the CATO Institute, Church World Service, and the

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think is worth addressing is the provision of this bill that changes current law relative to unlawful entry or attempted unlawful entry.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1326, this is a crime if the individual evaded detection. This has been the principle in Federal law for more than 100 years. Since 1908, the Federal courts have recognized that illegal entry and illegal reentry require entry free from something called official restraint, otherwise known as detention.

Now, this bill would change that longstanding law. The bill amends U.S.C. 1326 to make the physical act of crossing the border a crime for any individual who has been previously removed or denied admission regardless of whether the individual was ``free from official restraint'' when doing so.

Now, why is this a problem?

As I mentioned earlier, individuals who, for one reason or another, need to come into the United States go to a port of entry, and they ask to see the Border Patrol agent. Under this law, that is a crime.

Now, let me give you some examples of what that would mean. I will just talk about the case of Juliza, who was a Guatemalan-Indian woman. She faced violent persecution really based on her ethnicity. She was raped by family members who referred to her as a dirty Indian as they assaulted her. As she went to report this assault to the police, she was sexually propositioned by the officers.

After a family member threatened her with sexual violence and death, she fled to the United States. She sought asylum, but she was promptly deported--turned away--by the Customs and Border Patrol. Within a month of returning to Guatemala, she was drugged, raped, and thrown into a river. She fled to the United States for a second time and, once again, was turned away without seeing an immigration judge or speaking to an asylum officer.

Finally, the third time she came, her 8-year-old son had been threatened by gang members, and she was finally allowed to make her case and was granted asylum.

Or the case of Carla. In June of 2016, Carla, who was from Mexico, and her children sought asylum after her father, son, grandfather, and uncle were killed in a span of 7 days, targeting her family. She went to the border to turn herself in. She was turned away by CBP agents twice.

After the family sought assistance from an attorney, they went back to the border, to the port of entry, and the CBP officers finally processed them appropriately under American immigration law. This was their third attempt. The U.S. immigration judge in Texas ruled that they were indeed refugees and granted asylum.

Now, I raise these two cases because you think deported, if you are turned away at the border, it counts for removal under the law. These individuals would be felons under this bill.

Making Juliza and her 8-year-old son or Carla a felon does not save an American from crime; it just doesn't. The two are not connected. And so to think that this bill, which does such harm to asylum seekers, is necessary to save Americans from threats is simply incorrect. It is important to stand up for our long-term values in international law.

There are other ways that one could become a criminal by showing up at the border. It is not uncommon that young people who have a valid visa issued by a U.S. consulate or Embassy come. They fly into the country and they are interviewed by a Customs and Border Patrol agent.

Now, if that person on the visitor visa is a 20-year-old young man who is unmarried, doesn't have a job in the country he is from, doesn't own a home, and is from kind of a poor country, it is not all that uncommon for the Border Patrol agency to make a decision that that person is not a good risk for entry, that they might overstay their visa and not return home.

I am not questioning that exercise of judgment, but if that same individual, 20 years later, is now a doctor and he has got a J visa to come in and be a doctor in the middle of America where there is a doctor shortage, he lands at Kennedy Airport with his visa to be a doctor, that would be a felony.

So the point I am making is there is much in this bill that does nothing about crime but to make criminals of people who have done nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons why we should vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following additional letter of opposition to H.R. 3004. This is a letter I mentioned earlier on the bill.

National Immigrant Justice

Center,

June 27, 2017.

H.R. 3003 and 3004 Undermine American Values NIJC Opposes the ``No

Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' and ``Kate's Law''

This week the House of Representatives will vote on two

bills that attempt to re-write our nation's immigration laws

to reflect a dangerous philosophy of governance. For decades

now, elected officials across the bipartisan divide have

joined together calling for a compassionate and common sense

approach to immigration legislation. These bills move us

further away from that goal. H.R. 3003, ironically named the

``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' will endanger the safety

of our communities by forcing local police to abandon

community policing efforts and become a full partner with the

administration's massive deportation force. H.R. 3004, known

as ``Kate's Law,'' will result in the unnecessary

incarceration of countless immigrants for the mere act of

migration.

The National Immigrant Justice Center calls on elected

officials to reject such nonsensical and harmful legislation.

In the face of hateful rhetoric, now is the time to stand

with immigrant communities.

H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'', will further erode

community trust in local police and put our communities in danger

H.R. 3003 amends 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prohibit states and

localities from enacting policies that in any way limit

cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE), even when federal courts have ruled such cooperation

unconstitutional.

The law would strip localities of vital discretion to enact

immigration-enforcement-related laws and policies that are

smart and effective for their communities. Specifically, it

prohibits localities from declining to comply with requests

from ICE to jail individuals under detainer requests even

when doing so will put them in blatant violation of binding

federal court orders. Our communities are safer when

residents feel safe calling for help and assisting police in

investigating and prosecuting cries. By effectively forcing

localities into the business of federal immigration law, this

law will preclude cities and counties from using their

limited local resources to address public safety concerns in

the ways they deem most appropriate and effective.

On top of the danger the bill poses to community safety,

this law arguably violates the ``anti-commandeering''

principle of the Tenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

H.R. 3003 punishes jurisdictions for engaging in smart

community policing.

The law would punish jurisdictions that choose to limit

cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by stripping

federal funding that fulfills vital law enforcement needs,

including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

(SCAAP), the ``Cops on the Beat Program,'' the Byrne Justice

Assistance Grant Program, and any other grant administered by

the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security that are

deemed ``substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism,

national security, immigration, or naturalization.'' In

addition to running further afoul of the Tenth Amendment,

this law cruelly forces jurisdictions to choose between

maintaining critical funds, including

for community policing, or exposing themselves to the

significant legal and financial liability that accompany

compliance with detainer requests under the Fourth Amendment

and the Fourteenth Amendment.

H.R. 3003 upends the criminal justice system by permitting

and in some cases requiring ICE to ignore criminal warrants

issued by state and local jurisdictions that it deems in non-

compliance with other provisions of the bill.

H.R. 3003 vastly expands ICE's authority to force

localities to detain immigrants with no regard for the Fourth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and gives local actors

immunity for resulting constitutional violations.

The law makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by giving

lip service to the notion of ``probable cause'' but in

reality allowing ICE to ask localities to detain immigrants

longer than they would otherwise be held simply on the basis

of a belief that the individual is removable from the United

States. The law then goes on to provide local actors immunity

for resulting constitutional violations. In practice, this

piece of the law essentially requires local actors to violate

the constitution and then gives them immunity for doing so.

It is legislative overreach at its worst.

H.R. 3003 demonizes immigrants by creating a new private

right of action for victims of crime solely on the basis of

the citizenship status of the perpetrator of the crime.

The law provides that an individual or surviving relative

can bring a lawsuit against a state or locality if the

perpetrator of the offense is a non-citizen and was released

from custody pursuant to a trust policy. This provision

allows the worst kind of scapegoating, manipulating

individual tragedies to demonize all immigrants.

H.R. 3003 expands the already damaging ``mandatory

detention'' provisions of immigration law, requiring no-bond

detention for large categories of undocumented individuals

for the duration of deportation proceedings against them.

The law thumbs its nose at the basic due process

protections of our United States Constitution, explicitly

approving of indefinite detention for individuals in

immigration custody regardless of their community ties to the

United States or necessity for detention. Specifically, the

law expands greatly the categories of immigrants who are

denied access to any individualized bond determination

throughout their time in immigration jail. With deaths in

immigration detention occurring with alarming frequency and

rates of representation in detention alarmingly low, these

provisions are nothing but cruel.

H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' will further the mass incarceration of immigrants--including asylum seekers--by increasing penalties for the

mere act of migration

H.R. 3004 expands the existing criminal offense of illegal

reentry to punish legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence

in their countries of origin.

The law expands the category of individuals punishable by

section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to include

even those men and women who surrender themselves at the

southern border to seek protection in the United States.

H.R. 3004 senselessly expands sentencing enhancements for

illegal reentry at a time when more than half of all federal

prosecutions target migration-related offenses.

The law provides incredibly harsh sentencing enhancements

for individuals seeking to return to the United States after

a previous removal on the basis of prior convictions or

entries. Apart from the cruel and unnecessary use of federal

prison to separate families, this bill will prove exorbitant

in its costs at a time when taxpayers have already footed a

bill of more than $7 billion to incarcerate migrants for

migration-related offenses over the past decade.

H.R. 3004 punishes immigrants for illegal reentry even if

their previous deportation orders were unlawful and deprived

them of the opportunity to seek protection. This law entirely

prohibits defendants in illegal reentry cases from

challenging the validity of their prior deportation orders.

This provision is blatantly unconstitutional and in violation

of Supreme Court jurisprudence that protects against

punishing immigrants on the basis of legally defective

deportation orders. See U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828

(1987). This law will criminalize, for example, asylum

seekers who return to the United States after being

previously denied the opportunity to present their claims for

protection. Given the already anemic protections for asylum

seekers at our southern border, these provisions will

inevitably harm the most vulnerable among us.

A vote for H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 is a vote for hatred and

a vote against community safety. NIJC calls on Members of

Congress to stand on the right of history and oppose these

harmful measures.

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

I am.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle insist that today's bill is intended to keep Americans safe by enhancing penalties for criminals who reenter illegally or attempt to do so. I am offering an amendment that takes Republicans at their word.

This amendment would make clear that H.R. 3004 would not be used to criminally prosecute and incarcerate sex trafficking victims merely for seeking protection at ports of entry.

As should be evident at this stage of debate, the provisions of this bill extend well beyond immigrants with criminal histories; in fact, they reach many of the most vulnerable and persecuted members of society. Perhaps most egregiously, H.R. 3004 authorizes, for the first time, the prosecution of individuals who voluntarily present themselves at points of entry to seek relief consistent with our immigration laws, and that includes individuals seeking protection as victims of sex trafficking.

Let's be clear on the law. Today, it is not a crime for an individual who has been previously denied admission or removed to voluntarily present herself at a port of entry seeking to reenter the country legally. This bill changes that by making the simple act of going to the port of entry, which itself requires the physical act of crossing the border, a felony offense for such individuals.

These are not individuals attempting to evade immigration agents. They are not trying to sneak into the United States. They are simply exercising the right to lawfully approach a U.S. port of entry to seek permission to enter.

Under this bill, the act of approaching CBP agents now becomes criminally prosecutable as an illegal reentry. Anyone with a prior removal order or even merely denied admission commits a crime by so much as stepping into the port of entry.

I mentioned the two asylee seekers a few moments ago. These are people who are fleeing danger and under our laws have the right to present their cases. Now, H.R. 3004 would do this to the women I mentioned: It would make them criminals, and it would allow for the prosecution and imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Now, even if our immigration system awarded these victims protection, such as a T visa for human trafficking, the criminal justice system could take away her liberty.

I strongly hope that my colleagues across the aisle would not seek to punish women who are fleeing from sex traffickers, because there are thousands of women who are innocent, abused, sexually trafficked by the worst of civilization, and instead of offering help to these women, this bill would put them in prison. It would prosecute them for asking, of all things, that their life be saved.

I mentioned earlier, we put in the Record, the opposition of the Tahirih Justice Center to this bill. They advocate for victims of trafficking and gender-based violence, and they oppose this bill with all their strength. Here is what they say, and it is a quote: ``H.R. 3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse. . . . `'

Now, I disagree with some of the elements of this bill, and I have tried to make clear why, but I take Mr. Goodlatte at his word that he wants to make sure that we have a safe society. I think, if that is his hope, we will make clear that sex trafficking victims are not going to be prosecuted or considered criminals when they enter a port of entry and present themselves to U.S. officials.

This amendment is the chance for Republicans to show that they really are for the rule of law. It would stipulate that this bill would not subject sex trafficking victims to criminal prosecution merely for voluntarily presenting themselves at the border to request protection from the unspeakable harm that they have suffered.

I will close with this. Years ago, we worked together on a bipartisan basis to fight sex trafficking. We created the U and T visas. It was a broad bipartisan coalition. I remember now Governor Sam Brownback and others, people who are at other ends, opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but we came together to fight sex trafficking. We should do the same thing today. Let's not forget that we can work together to do the right thing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call up the bill (H.R. 3004) to amend section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to reentry of removed aliens, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 3004.

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

Mr. Speaker, for too long, illegal reentry of criminal aliens has been viewed as a minor felony with only a fraction of those repeat offenders ever seeing the inside of a Federal courtroom. Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides Federal prosecutors with the tools necessary to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States.

Unfortunately, the section simply does not go far enough to act as a deterrent. Criminal aliens view the risk as worth the reward, as most charged under this section of law are given minuscule sentences that belie the severity of the crime.

Aliens who reenter the United States after being removed, demonstrate a flagrant disregard for our immigration laws and pose a tremendous threat to public safety and national security in every community nationwide.

This Congress has heard from countless victims and family members of victims whose lives were forever changed or completely destroyed by criminal aliens preying on our citizens.

This bill is named in memory and in honor of Kate Steinle. On July 1, 2015, Ms. Steinle was enjoying an evening at a popular attraction in San Francisco with her father. As three shots were fired, Ms. Steinle collapsed screaming. Her father, Jim, performed CPR until paramedics arrived, but she ultimately succumbed to the severe damage caused by the bullet and she died hours later.

Her murderer was arrested an hour later and identified as a middle- aged criminal alien who had been removed from the United States and had returned at least five times. The gun used had been stolen from a Federal officer with the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. Speaker, these horrific events must be better deterred and prevented. No legislation can prevent every tragic situation, but this Congress has a duty to take every action possible to mitigate this harm and danger.

It is in this vein that I am proud to bring Kate's Law to the House floor today. This bill seeks to amend and greatly improve section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act by enhancing the maximum sentences for criminal aliens who seek to reenter the United States.

While an alien reentering this country is subject to a sentence of up to 2 years, current law only subjects certain criminals to enhance penalties. Specifically, only criminal aliens previously convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in our immigration laws, controlled substance violations, crimes against other persons, or certain felonies would trigger an enhanced sentence of either 10 or 20 years.

Kate's Law closes the loophole into which so many criminal aliens fall. The bill provides that a criminal alien, previously convicted of any three misdemeanors or any felony, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced to at least 30 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 15 years.

Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced to at least 60 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Aliens previously convicted for murder, rape, kidnapping, a peonage offense, or any three felonies, would, under conviction for illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 25 years.

These are significant enhancements to our immigration laws and are long overdue. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention a caveat added to the bill. If enacted, Kate's Law adds affirmative defenses for aliens charged under this section. If an alien can prove that they had the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission, or that an alien previously denied admission and removed was not required to obtain such consent, then the alien may present that as an affirmative defense to the illegal reentry crime.

This safeguard will ensure that only aliens who illegally reenter the United States may be convicted and sentenced to enhanced penalties under this section.

This is missing from the current statute, and I am sure my colleagues on both side of the aisle would agree that due process protections such as these add to the efficacy of such a measure.

Nothing that this Congress can pass will ever bring Kate Steinle back, nor take away the pain suffered by her family, and countless other victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens. Kate's Law, however, will offer a deterrent against future criminal aliens who seek to illegally reenter the United States. Knowing they may face up to 2 years in Federal prison is one thing, but the possibility of a sentence of 10, 15, 20, or 25 years will have the desired effect.

I agree with many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle that we must take many other steps to address our immigration system. This Congress must pass strong measures to ensure that immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States remains a priority. Kate's Law is an essential component of that larger effort to bring about true enforcement of our immigration laws, and protect this Nation from criminal aliens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to quote from a letter from the Sergeants Benevolent Association that we received 2 days ago in support of Kate's Law, and I want to read a sentence from it.

``In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from those aliens who enter the United States illegally, commit crimes here, are deported, and who illegally return to the U.S. and commit additional crimes has become a top concern of the law enforcement community.''

This is from the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City of New York. I include it in the Record.

Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City

of New York,

New York, NY, June 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. There is not a person who has participated in this debate today who cannot go back a few years, a few generations or several generations and find someone in their family who came here to the United States, but we are also a nation of laws. The loss of respect for the rule of law is absolutely a serious problem in this country, and the step-by-step approach to restoring respect for the rule of law and reforming our immigration laws starts with these bills, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law.

We are all about today, in this legislation, enhancing public safety, securing our borders, and restoring the rule of law.

We give discretion to Federal judges--discretion to Federal judges, I would add--to make sure that people who have entered this country previously illegally and who reenter the country can be given enhanced sentences. It is not mandatory by any means, and, in fact, in many instances, it would be better to send the person outside the country and not have the taxpayers bear the expense.

But in the case of the individual who murdered Kate Steinle and had reentered the country five times and had committed other crimes while in the United States, having that additional time that the judge could impose on that individual who was just being released for having been convicted of illegally entering the country, Bureau of Prisons should have turned him over to ICE to send him out again. But if the ICE agents wanted to, when he entered illegally the previous time, recommend that he be given more time than the sentence he just served, he would have still been in prison when Kate Steinle walked down that pier with her father and was murdered by him.

So when those on the other side say this was not preventable by this law, they are entirely wrong. This law would have prevented that if a judge had chosen to impose that additional time that we are today providing in these cases.

We also clear up some uncertainty regarding this current law, and I think it is entirely appropriate to do so. It will deal with some of the situations that those on the other side have discussed, but most importantly, it will discourage people from entering the United States illegally, particularly when they have already entered illegally earlier and have been convicted of a crime for doing so.

So, to me, this is absolutely the beginning point of restoring to law enforcement at every level in our country the necessary tools to enforce our immigration laws, to work together to keep American citizens safe, like Kate Steinle and many, many others.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with about a dozen representatives of families who lost loved ones to the criminal acts of people who were not lawfully present in the United States. And so it is also entirely true to say that, had those individuals not been present in the United States, those crimes would not have been committed, those, in most instances, murders, in all instances, killings, would not have taken place.

Therefore, when you enforce our immigration laws, unlike laws applying to American citizens who also commit crimes, in the case of people who are not lawfully present in the United States, these crimes are entirely preventable if we enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to support Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act to make sure that we go down this road of restoring the trust of the American people in their system of government, in their protection by their government, and in their own respect for the rule of law and know that their government is upholding that with regard to other individuals as well.

This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit not only changes the bill before us, but it also changes current law. It has long been Federal law that an alien who has been deported and who returns to the U.S. is subject to possible criminal prosecution.

Under this bill, an alien who has received consent from the Department of Homeland Security to return or is not required to seek consent from DHS has an affirmative defense.

Obviously, such an alien will never be prosecuted. Never has, never will. In fact, because this is current law--and the gentlewoman was the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 4 years and never offered such an amendment to current law--I see no reason to address it in this legislation.

I will say that we have all been committed in a very bipartisan fashion to combating sex trafficking. We passed several bills through this House, some with the gentlewoman's support, some without, that do indeed combat sex trafficking.

But back to the issue before us today. Criminal aliens are reentering the United States after being removed all the time. Without stronger enforcement measures in place, this government cannot provide an appropriate deterrence for these reentries.

Kate's Law takes a tough approach to dealing with criminal aliens who reenter the United States. Instead of the majority being subjected to no more than a 2-year maximum sentence, this bill takes an individual's criminal history into consideration and provides enhanced penalties accordingly. While the 2-year sentence may not deter illegal reentry, a potential 25-year sentence certainly would.

Nothing can bring Kate Steinle back and nothing can absolutely prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. This legislation is meant to honor her memory and clearly demonstrate that this Congress will act.

This legislation is another step in bringing stronger enforcement measures to improve our immigration enforcement capabilities. Longer sentences for those criminal aliens who reenter the United States illegally is an important aspect of that mechanism.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, vote for the underlying bill, and to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. This is politically driven legislation intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies have shown immigrants commit less crimes.

It enhances criminal penalties against immigrants, the vast majority of whom have come here peacefully to rejoin loved ones. All that, and it doesn't even do what it claims to, address the situation that led to the tragic death of Kate Steinle.

There are those who might imply that this bill came from H.R. 15, the comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that could have passed the House if allowed to vote on the floor, but this is not true. I know, because I was one of the lead sponsors of this bill.

Our bill would have vastly improved the pathways to immigrate legally to the U.S. This bill makes no distinction between those immigrants trying to rejoin their families and those who may be prone to commit crimes.

Instead, it treats all immigrants attempting to reenter the U.S. as criminals and significantly expands sentences for persons with misdemeanors such as driving without a license or loitering. Even asylum seekers, who present themselves at the border to escape deadly gang violence in their home country, could be subject to criminal prosecution.

Turning our backs on asylum seekers and refugees doesn't make us safer. It makes us weak, and it is just plain wrong.

We were horrified by Kate Steinle's murder, but the provisions in this bill would not have prevented it. The man charged with killing her was convicted for multiple illegal reentry offenses, serving more than 16 years in prison. He had been caught each time he attempted to cross the border. His presence in San Francisco was not due to lax penalties for reentry or weak border security.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation ripped from the pages of Donald Trump's mass deportation and anti-immigrant playbook.

I include in the Record five documents from organizations that are opposed to this bill as well as the sanctuary bill, and that is the 15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors who are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association; the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME; the 2 million members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU; the Asian Americans Advancing Justice; and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.

American Immigration

Lawyers Association,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association

Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R.

3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)

Contact: Gregory Chen, Director of Government Relations.

As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration

lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers

Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''

(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends

that members of Congress reject these bills which are

scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27

and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary

Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance

public safety,'' they will do just the opposite: undermine

public safety and make it even harder for local law

enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In

addition, the bills which were made public less than a week

before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary

Committee, include provisions that will result in violations

of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the

Constitution.

At a time when over 9 out of 10 Americans support

immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented,

Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on

enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions,

deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and

their families who have strong ties to the United States.

Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants,

Congress should be offering workable reforms that will

strengthen our economy and our country.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with

local policing.

H.R. 3003 would amend 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prevent states

or localities from establishing laws or policies that

prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or

cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill

dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more

narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from

restricting the sharing and exchange of information with

federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's

citizenship or immigration status.

Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad

wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to

enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure

victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The

bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS

from

honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed ``sanctuary

cities'' if the individual being sought by local law

enforcement has a final order of removal.

Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with

federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of

federal funding for critical law enforcement, national

security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives,

including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

(SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and

Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of

dollars to localities nationwide.

In an effort to force localities to engage in civil

immigration enforcement efforts, including those against

nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it

far more difficult for many localities, including large

cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous

criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of

immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated

sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from

the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.

H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in

the Fourth Amendment.

By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting

their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement,

H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE

detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally

suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE.

Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates

the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable

for honoring them.

The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing

that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold

undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is

currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.

Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue

detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral

magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in

the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral

magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive

provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose

between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or

being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''

Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and

private contractors with immunity if they are sued for

violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer

the financial burden of litigation by substituting the

federal government for the local officers as the defendant.

If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck

paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly

detained.

The bill goes even further by creating a private right of

action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue

localities if the crime was committed by someone who was

released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer

request.

H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment.

H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities to utilize

their local law enforcement resources to implement federal

civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth

Amendment's ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment

does not permit the federal government to force counties and

cities to allocate local resources, including police

officers, technology, and personnel, to enforce federal

immigration law. The federal government also cannot withhold

funds from localities refusing to participate in federal

efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the purpose

of the federal program, or if the sanctions are punitive in

nature.

H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process.

H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without

ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination.

Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including

those who have overstayed their visa would be subject to

detention without a custody hearing. The bill also

establishes that DHS has the authority to detain individuals

``without time limitation'' during the pendency of removal

proceedings. These provisions would dramatically expand the

federal government's power to indefinitely detain

individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers

of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention

facilities.

Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in

federal law for illegal reentry (INA Sec. 276; 8 U.S.C.

Sec. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal

reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each

year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all

federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds

sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor

misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but

have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve

public safety and will undermine due process and protections

for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer

funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of

people who pose no threat to the community and who have

strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their

loved ones.

H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon

people with minor offenses.

H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor

misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license

and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version

of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the

U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up

to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or

three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under

H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three

misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a

term of up to ten years.

This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of

people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are

trying to reunite with family members and have other strong

ties to the United States. Currently half of all people

convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the

country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also

waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock

up non-violent people.

H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at

the border.

H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA Sec. 276 to punish

not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter

the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the

border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to

mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of

whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That

means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to

request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a

fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on

a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all of us mourn the death of Kate Steinle, tragically shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Indeed, there isn't a parent anywhere who doesn't worry constantly about the well-being and the health and the safety of a child. And we all know, even though we may not have lost our own, we have deep sympathy with those who do. But as the Cato Institute has outlined, the legislation before us today would not have prevented that tragedy.

As the Cato Institute has said, the alleged shooter ``did not end up in San Francisco due to lax border security, and the case actually shows the opposite. In recent years, Border Patrol caught him each time he attempted to cross.''

He was only in the city because the U.S. Justice Department failed to do its job, and that is why Cato has called this bill, ``a waste of Federal resources.'' Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, that these are the words of the Cato Institute, a group founded by the well-known conservative Charles Koch. Cato could not have been more clear when they said it this week: ``Kate's Law would not have helped Kate.''

Now, our country has listened as President Donald J. Trump called Mexican immigrants ``criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.'' The public has watched him promote the formation of a deportation force to tear apart immigrants from their families and sign an executive order directing Federal resources toward the construction of a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, where there is one mostly already that has not done that much deterring, but that is despite the fact that Federal spending on border security over the last few years has been at the highest level that our country has ever seen. It seems the majority has now taken a page from the President's playbook, apparently trying to turn his dangerous rhetoric into law.

It is shameful that they are prioritizing a bill that is completely unnecessary, since current law already imposes adequately severe penalties for illegal reentry, including enhanced penalties for criminal offenses. It is already covered, Mr. Speaker, but we do have something we need to fill the afternoon since the health bill failed. All the while, the majority is ignoring the many, many, many major issues facing the Nation today.

Now, I know, and we all know, that the bill wasn't the only thing they were hoping to ram through here before we adjourned for the district work period. They also hoped to pass their healthcare repeal bill so quickly before leaving town that the American people wouldn't notice; but, frankly, even as I say that, they have noticed, as I understand now, that the approval rating for that bill is 12 percent. They have noticed. I think what they have noticed is that they are going to kill Medicaid.

The reason they wanted to do this in a hurry, repeal healthcare first, was in order to fulfill their tax bill promise of corporate tax cuts as well as tax cuts for the richest people in the United States. They wanted to take from the health bill, the expanded Medicare money, $80 billion to pay for tax cuts. The devastation that that would create, I think most American people understand it.

If they have a loved one in a nursing home, that means that, since 64 percent of the cost of nursing care is borne by Medicaid, that they would very likely have to bring the person home.

It means that 22 million people would lose their health insurance. You know, we just say that, ``22 million people.'' Let me put that number in some perspective. That number, 22 million, is more than the population of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming combined. That is pretty impressive, isn't it?

In February, our President Trump said: ``Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.'' Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, those of us on our side who worked for more than a year to craft the Affordable Care Act knew that very well. I was chair of the Rules Committee at the time, and just the Rules Committee heard from 46 different Members of Congress over the course of three meetings which, together, lasted more than 20 hours, one of them a full Saturday of hearings.

So, together with the work done by the other committees of jurisdiction, the healthcare reform law received such a thorough vetting--and I want to get this on the record because I hear all the time it was written behind closed doors and strange people and nobody knew what it was and that we were all surprised. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bill Kristol proclaimed on FOX News: ``This is the most thoroughly debated piece of legislation in my memory in Washington.''

I feel like I need to say that again, but I won't take the time, but how important it is. But those of us who were there knew it. We knew how many committee meetings were held on this legislation.

On the bill you are talking about from your side, the majority side, not a single committee has heard it. I wager that the vast majority of the Republicans--who deserve to see it--have not even seen that bill, and that is a tragedy. We do not operate the United States of America that way.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison between the open, the transparent, and lengthy process that we went through to craft the Affordable Care Act--which, by the way, was written by experts--and what the majority is trying to do with this disastrous repeal bill.

And while I am at it, so many times when I was doing the rule on the repeal bills--and, you know, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. We know now that all those 7 years and those more than 60 votes that we paid for while we are running the House, that all this time there was no replacement. They still don't have a replacement. If that wasn't a hoax on the American people, I don't know what was. But the process we are seeing now is defined by backroom deals and secrecy and a complete disregard for regular order.

And I understand that, between now and tomorrow afternoon, there will be a lot of big deals changing hands so that we won't know next week what is there anyway, but we wait to see the new CBO score and see what that says.

Nearly every President since Theodore Roosevelt tried to enact healthcare reform. That is a long time. Teddy Roosevelt tried it and many

Presidents after him. But after decades of failed attempts and false starts, President Obama, working with a Democratic Congress, was finally able to deliver.

The majority should work with us again. We are willing to do that. And what we would really like to see you do is take the ACA and the problems that it has and let's work together and improve that law, which has already been in effect now for a number of years, since 2014, and we could just move ahead and get on with things that are terribly important to us.

We wish that you would do that instead of trying to dismantle it. If it were dismantled, it would disrupt the markets. It would harm the sick and disproportionately impact those in nursing homes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of bringing jobs back home and removing barriers to job creation. But despite these promises, President Trump's budget does the complete opposite. It cuts job training programs by 39 percent, and its draconian spending cuts would lead to massive job losses.

My colleagues will be happy to hear that I have an amendment that will ensure that the President keeps his promise of bringing jobs back home.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs Home Act, H.R. 685.

H.R. 685 will close a tax loophole that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States.

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the 38th closed rule allowing no amendments that House Republicans have brought to the floor this year alone, and it is only June. At this rate, the majority is well on its way to becoming the most closed Congress in history.

Regular order seems to be a thing of the past under this leadership, with bills coming to the House floor, as these two are, for a vote without even going through the committee process. The immigration bills we considered this week didn't even go through regular order. The disastrous healthcare repeal bill, which would impact one-sixth of the Nation's economy, didn't get a single hearing, and hardly anybody saw it.

No experts were ever called to discuss its impacts, and it was jammed through the Chamber last month without even a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its costs or its impacts. The Senate has also completely bypassed the committee process.

I was proud to bring the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, to the House floor in 2009, as chair of the Rules Committee. That process couldn't have been more different.

Let me remind those watching today that the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on health insurance reform in 2009 and 2010. During this time, House Members heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 Democratic and Republican amendments, and accepted 121 of them.

That process was entirely different from what we go through today. In fact, a lot of the Members of the House are really cut out of most of the process. The idea of getting an amendment is really pretty rare.

The legislation we consider here should be able to withstand scrutiny, but, more and more, the Nation's business is done in the dark, or by a few people.

Let's get out of the back rooms, Mr. Speaker, and let legislators of both parties do their job under an open process. That is what the Speaker promised when he took the gavel, and it is what all the books and Rules of the House of Representatives desire, and it is certainly what the American people deserve.

Mr. Speaker, we should not consider a bill that would cost tens of millions of people to lose health insurance, and not consider the anti- immigration bills before us today.

So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill, and hope for better days.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.