Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4010, the Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act of 2017. My support of this legislation is tied to my view of our committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

Nearly a century ago in McGrain v. Daugherty, the United States Supreme Court framed that responsibility this way: ``A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information--which not infrequently is true--recourse must be had to others who possess it.''

In other words, it is our responsibility to ask for the information we require to do our jobs effectively, and the Constitution empowers us to enforce those requests if we are at first denied. We should be very clear on this point. Congress does not require a statute in order to enforce its subpoenas in Federal court.

We know this, of course, because in 2008, the House Judiciary Committee went to court to defend that authority. Ruling in favor of the committee, the court held that the Bush administration's claim of absolute immunity from our process ``is entirely unsupported by existing case law.''

In effect, both government officials and private individuals have a legal obligation to comply with the duly issued congressional subpoena whether or not the bill before us today is enacted into law, still this legislation is useful as a means to codify certain practices and to expedite enforcement of subpoenas in Federal court.

It also puts the House on equal footing with the Senate, which has had a statute in place since 1978, allowing that body to enforce at least some of its subpoenas in Federal court.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working with us to make sure that we strike the right balance. This bill both protects our existing authority and mitigates many concerns about abusive subpoena power by a runaway committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for his leadership on this issue.

We often disagree about the issues we should prioritize for oversight, but I suspect that we stand together on the importance of oversight, both to our committee and to the Congress as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues support the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to share one last thought before closing. In our markup of this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) had this to say about a recent experience in the Intelligence Committee:

``We had interviewed a witness just 2 weeks ago with respect to our Russia interference investigation. . . .

``After the interview, he gave a public statement . . . and said that he had withheld information from the committee because he was not under subpoena.

``And he also stated that he felt like he had certain privileges to assert that allowed him to withhold this information.

``And so I saw right there . . . that even under a subpoena, individuals believe''--some individuals believe--``that without necessarily having a judicial or legal basis for privilege that they could just assert it.

``And I believe that is because the public is starting to perceive that our subpoena power does not have the weight that it should.''

Wherever the Intelligence Committee's investigation lands, Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of work to do. Given some of our current challenges, it is more important than ever for the House to conduct substantive oversight of the executive branch. This bill contributes to that effort, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding the time to me.

Madam Speaker, more than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held that women have the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability or at any time to protect the life and health of the mother. This bill is flatly unconstitutional on both counts.

The Supreme Court has blocked every other 20-week ban because 20 weeks is well before the point of viability. Further, the bill includes no exception for the health of the mother, only waiving the ban if a woman's life is at imminent risk, in clear violation of a woman's constitutional rights.

Shamefully, the bill places new and cruel restrictions even on women accessing abortion after rape or incest.

Once again, the Republicans are proclaiming the falsehood that 20- week-old fetuses can feel pain, contrary to the conclusions of every reputable researcher in the field.

What about women like Danielle from New York, who found out in the 29th week of her pregnancy that her baby's brain was dangerously deformed and that, if she and the baby were to survive the pregnancy, the baby would only live a short, extremely painful life.

Danielle and her husband had two young children and faced a heartbreaking decision: Should they put Danielle and their family through the pain and suffering of a dangerous pregnancy and birth and allow their baby to suffer and die in pain, or should she terminate the pregnancy and mourn their baby as a family?

The Constitution guarantees Danielle the right to make that choice with her family and her doctors. It does not grant that right to the politicians sitting in this room.

I will close with Danielle's words: ``What my husband and I experienced was just so horrible. Unless people have walked in my shoes, they don't understand. I did what was right for my son and my family, and it's no one else's business.''

On behalf of Danielle, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this horrible bill. We must stop the bans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2792, the hopelessly misnamed Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act.

As has become sadly routine in this Chamber under Republican rule, this bill considers those merely accused of a crime as if they were convicted felons without bothering with little niceties like due process. Having dispensed with basic constitutional protections, the bill then cuts off vital government assistance to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Under current law, the Social Security Administration helps law enforcement track down individuals with an outstanding arrest warrant for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of probation or parole. Those who are actively fleeing law enforcement can also have their Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits terminated. Under this bill, however, SSI benefits, which serve as a lifeline for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, would be terminated, whether or not people are actually attempting to evade justice.

The mere issuance of a warrant or an alleged parole violation with no arrest,

no trial, and no conviction would be enough to cut off vital benefits to the neediest among us. This is not just unconstitutional, it is inhumane. The bill would ensure that many low-income seniors and people with disabilities will lose their benefits unfairly and unnecessarily.

The vast majority of people affected by this bill have outstanding warrants that law enforcement chooses not to bother serving, often because they are for very old or minor offenses. Many people do not even know that an arrest warrant has been issued for them, but this bill would consider them as felons fleeing justice.

Many warrants are issued on the basis of mistaken identity, inaccuracies, or paperwork errors. It can take months to resolve such errors, which might involve traveling to a distant jurisdiction, hiring an attorney, and working through an overloaded court system.

And supporters of this bill expect people living on less than $750 a month to do all of this: to go to a different jurisdiction, to hire an attorney, to do all of this while the benefits they rely on to subsist are cut off?

That is outrageous.

We heard from the gentlewoman from South Dakota about various exceptions to the bill, you can go through this process and that process. With what attorney? With what money? Does this bill have an appropriation in it to supply attorneys for people faced with this cutoff, people who, by definition, are the poorest people, who can't afford an attorney?

This legislation is a blatant violation of due process, and it will cause untold suffering to the people who need our help the most. At a time when Republicans are unveiling their proposal for massive tax cuts for the wealthy, this bill is a shameful illustration of the majority's priorities.

It is also a shameful illustration of something we have seen on this floor too often, and that is the assumption that anyone accused of something is guilty and that we don't have to bother with a trial, we don't have to bother with proof, and we don't have to bother with due process. That eviscerates much of the reason for the existence of this country, to vindicate due process, to give people rights and not to assume that anyone who a judge or someone thinks may have committed a crime is automatically guilty. We believe in due process in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this bill's defeat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit on behalf of Ms. Velazquez. This is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

It is unfortunate that we are here today debating inadequate policies while our fellow Americans in Puerto

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are hurting.

While I do not doubt the underlying bill was made with good intentions, it is not just inadequate for all the victims of the hurricanes, and it is insulting to the people of Puerto Rico. They are hurting. They have no food, no water, no power. They need our help.

Estimates suggest the storm caused $40 billion to $85 billion in insurance claims throughout the Caribbean, with 85 percent of those losses in Puerto Rico. Nearly all of the island is without power, and 85 percent of cell towers were knocked out. The hurricane ravaged 80 percent of the crop value in Puerto Rico--a $780 million loss. This will result in higher food prices at a time when Puerto Rico faces shortages.

These are only the initial estimates. Each day we learn more about the scale of devastation, and likely won't know the measure of damage for some time.

FEMA has indicated that it has ``provided more than 1.5 million meals, 1.1 million liters of water, nearly 300 infant and toddler kits, and nearly 12,000 emergency roofing kits to the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico since Hurricane Maria's landfall.'' That is a quote from

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3229, which would extend an important tool in protecting the safety of judges and their families.

Each year, Federal judges and certain other judicial employees are required to file financial disclosure reports which are made available to the public. These reports serve a vital function in promoting transparency, particularly of any potential conflicts of interest.

By their nature, however, they also disclose sensitive personal information like a home address or family member's place of business. In the hands of a disgruntled member of the public seeking retribution or of an otherwise disturbed individual, this information could put judges and their families at great risk.

Under current law, the Judicial Conference may redact information from a financial disclosure form if publishing such information could endanger the safety of the filer or a member of the filer's family. Unless Congress acts, this redaction authority will expire on December 31 of this year. This commonsense bill simply extends the redaction authority for 10 years.

Unfortunately, many Federal judges face threats to their safety merely for doing their jobs, and according to the Judicial Conference, the number of threats against them are increasing. For example, an Ohio man recently pleaded guilty to arranging a murder-for-hire plot against a judge; an alleged ISIS sympathizer who was attempting to learn a judge's address was indicted a few months ago for threatening the judge; and last year, a California man, who was already in prison, was convicted of plotting to have the Federal judge, prosecutors, and FBI agents killed as revenge.

Sadly, earlier this year, we also saw threats against several judges who ruled against President Trump's Muslim ban. After the President himself launched a verbal assault against the judges and against the Federal judiciary more generally, the judges faced a cascade of online threats and they required heightened security measures. Even without such irresponsible and dangerous behavior by the President, Federal judges regularly face threats, and this legislation is an important tool in protecting their safety.

Although disclosure forms should only be redacted in the most extreme and limited circumstances, the Judicial Conference has used its redaction authority sparingly and wisely, and it should continue to have this authority available to it when circumstances warrant its use.

I appreciate Mr. Jeffries' leadership in introducing this legislation. I want to recognize Ranking Member Conyers for the work he has done to champion this issue over the years as well. I thank Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Issa for moving this bipartisan bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said about this body that if you invent a nice enough title for a bill, it doesn't matter what you write in the bill because all people know is what the title is. This bill is a good example of that.

Who is in favor of criminal alien gangs?

No one. But this bill has received no committee consideration in which the questions could have been asked and the answers given to make sure that the bill would do what its sponsors say it does.

But this legislation wouldn't provide decent protections against gang violence. It would shred due process protections and would allow deportation of innocent immigrants based on the flimsiest of evidence.

It would establish a Star Chamber-like process for designating criminal gangs that would provide virtually no opportunity for them to contest such a designation. Once a group is designated as a gang, an immigrant who is determined to be a member of that gang--determined under undefined procedures and standards--would be almost assured of being deported and would be subject to mandatory detention while awaiting removal.

The procedures under this bill would be laughable if they did not have such deadly consequences for so many innocent people. Suppose there are some people in my neighborhood that I think are up to no good. Maybe I have good evidence that they are committing crimes, or maybe I just don't like them. Either way, I submit a tip to Homeland Security that the group is engaged in activity that qualifies as a criminal gang under this bill.

Then, based on undefined and unknown procedures, the DHS can designate that group as a criminal gang. In doing so, it would amass some sort of administrative record, which is also completely undefined in the bill, but we know it can include secret evidence. No notice would be given to the group that is under review, and no opportunity would be given to present evidence contesting the designation; no exculpatory evidence.

After designation, there is a process for judicial review; but unless the group has the habit of scouring the Federal Register, it would have no idea that it has been labeled a gang and that it needs to go to court in 30 days. If, somehow, the group does learn of its designation, it has just 30 days to contest it, and only in a Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

That review, however, would be based entirely on the administrative record amassed by the government. The group would have no opportunity to submit evidence to rebut the designation, which renders the entire review process meaningless. That is not due process under the Constitution. That is a sort of stacked process you would expect in a banana republic or in Russia.

It gets even worse. Under this bill, any alien is deportable if he or she is or has been a member of a designated gang or has participated in the gang's activities, knowing that would further its illegal activity.

But who determines that a person is a member of a gang? By what procedure? In what forum or what court? Using what standard?

The bill, given the Goodlatte amendment, does not say.

A person need not have been convicted or even charged with a crime to be deportable under this bill; and even when they are in removal proceedings, they would not be permitted to challenge the gang designation that landed them in those proceedings. Thus, we will have people deported on the basis of an unfair and secret process, with no notice and no meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for the deportation. That turns due process completely on its head.

Keeping out members of MS-13 and other deadly gangs is a worthy goal,

but this bill would not do that. It would have disastrous consequences for thousands of people each year who may or may not be members of a gang, who may or may not have any evidence against them, who will inevitably be caught up in its hash and overbroad provisions.

Mr. Speaker, just last week, President Trump upended the lives of 800,000 DREAMers who now face the possibility of being dragged away from the only country they know. Our highest priority should be providing these young, undocumented Americans the legal status they need to continue serving our Nation and being productive members of their communities.

I notice that the Speaker has said that, while he supports relief for the DREAMers, that the bill has to go through a committee.

Why didn't this bill have to go through a committee?

Instead, the Republican majority seeks to distract us from the plight of the DREAMers by returning to its mass deportation agenda based on the fear and dehumanization of immigrants.

This bill brings shame upon this House and this Nation's tradition of due process and fundamental fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and unconscionable legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the newly-christened Ponsie B. Hillman Way in Manhattan's Upper West Side celebrates a woman who dedicated her life to social justice. This well-deserving recognition will honor the indelible impact Mrs. Hillman left on New York and underserved communities around the country.

Having faced personal discrimination as a young African-American teacher in Maryland, Mrs. Hillman's earliest activism in the 1940s and 1950s focused on education equity. After Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its schools in an attempt to evade desegregation orders following the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, Mrs. Hillman traveled to Virginia with the American Federation of Teachers to teach students without pay.

After moving to New York City in 1965, Mrs. Hillman immediately stepped into multiple community organizing roles. She was elected to the Executive Board of the NAACP in Manhattan, and worked on affordable housing, education, and health projects. Mrs. Hillman also served as a leader of the local labor movement. As a member of the New York City Central Labor Council's Black Trade Unionist Leader Committee, Mrs. Hillman dedicated many years of hard work to increasing leadership opportunities for African-Americans in their union branches. Over the course of her life, Mrs. Hillman was recognized for her activism by the U.S. Secretary of Labor, American Federation of Teachers, and the New York City Central Labor Council, among others.

I am incredibly proud to represent so many institutions and community groups that were the recipients of Mrs. Hillman's service. The renaming of West 71st Street and Columbus Avenue on the Upper West Side, Mrs. Hillman's long-time neighborhood, will stand as a testament to her important work as an educator, civil rights activist, and New York communal leader. I wish her family heartfelt congratulations on this special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect New York DREAMers like Jessica, who has been in this country since she was two and hopes to become a doctor.

Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed an updated formula for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (the HOPWA program). The change was necessary to ensure the program better reflected how the HIV/AIDS epidemic is changing in this country. However, at the current HOPWA funding levels, the new formula leaves several jurisdictions, including New York City and Miami, at risk of losing funding for this important program.

In a program as efficient as HOPWA, when grantees lose funding, people living with AIDS lose their housing. Research clearly demonstrates that housing instability leads to worse health outcomes for those living with HIV/AIDS, and these potential cuts could have a devastating impact on these patients and their families. The new formula will only be effective in addressing the AIDS housing crisis if we maintain adequate funding levels.

My amendment increases funding for HOPWA by $19 million, ensuring that, under the new formula, no jurisdiction loses funding in Fiscal Year 2018. The amendment is fully offset through the HUD Information Technology Fund.

I thank Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Price for their long- standing support of HOPWA and for accepting this important amendment to protect people living with AIDS and their families. I look forward to continuing our work on HOPWA in the future. I also speak for all New Yorkers in lending our support to Chairman Diaz-Balart and his district in the face of Hurricane Irma, just as they stood with us during Superstorm Sandy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would eliminate funding for the Gateway Project.

The Gateway Project, which includes work on the Portal Bridge and construction of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River, is widely recognized as one of the highest priority transportation projects in the country.

We should have built new tunnels and expanded capacity on the Northeast Corridor long ago, but the damage to the existing tunnels caused by Superstorm Sandy has brought a new urgency to the situation. If those tunnels were to go down, as they certainly will in the next 10 years without the Gateway Project, there would be no rail service between New York and New Jersey, massively disrupting transportation all along the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston. Twenty percent of the economy of the country would be disrupted.

This amendment cuts funding for Gateway and eliminates almost $500 million from the bill completely, sending it to the spending reduction account. It does not direct that funding to other infrastructure projects. It does not restore TIGER funding. It reduces national infrastructure spending when we should be increasing it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this extremely shortsighted and punitive measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike sections 8094 and 8095 of the bill that prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and prohibit the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. These provisions are designed to further delay the transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is costing us a fortune. It costs the American taxpayer $10 million a year to keep a single detainee in Guantanamo, and only $78,000 to keep a detainee in a Federal maximum security prison in the United States. That is a waste of $440 million a year.

Perhaps, most importantly, it is a question of values. What is most offensive is not that the prisoners are at Guantanamo, as opposed to some prison in the United States, but that we are holding people without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever. That is against all American values.

Mr. Chairman, we have debated Guantanamo amendments every year, multiple times a year. The last time was 2 weeks ago. It is an issue I care deeply about, and I offer this amendment again. However, yesterday, the President took an action that is so egregious, and so offensive, that I feel compelled to use a portion of my time to address it directly.

Yesterday's attack by the Commander in Chief on our military's Active-Duty transgender personnel is appalling. Transgender individuals are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not.

The arguments against allowing transgender servicemembers to serve openly in our military are the same arguments that have been used against every other group that has been prohibited from serving in our country's history--including Black and Latino men, women, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Each time the doors of our military open farther to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired and discredited arguments are brought back: that any individual in the new group, regardless of his or her ability, is unfit to serve and that their service will disrupt unit cohesion.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Not only should all willing and able Americans be allowed and encouraged to serve--they already do. A report prepared for the Department of Defense estimates thousands of transgender individuals serve today, without issue.

The President must not impose blanket bans that prejudge servicemembers based on their identity, rather than their own merits. President Trump is attacking people who have shown a willingness-- indeed, an eagerness--to risk their lives in the service of our country. It is apparent that the decision to ban transgender people from military service was taken without consulting Secretary of Defense Mattis, who seemed surprised by the tweets, or the military, which seems at a loss as to how to implement the order.

Even if this bigoted order is motivated by political opportunism, it disgraces our country and must be rescinded.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this pernicious antilabor amendment that would do nothing but make it easier for U.S.- owned but foreign-flagged cruise ship operators to exploit and abuse the seafarers they employ.

The right for seafarers to seek maintenance and cure for injuries, illness, and damages at sea has been a part of U.S. maritime law for as long as U.S. ships have flown the flag on the high seas.

The effect of this amendment is clear: it would restrict foreign seafarers employed on foreign-flagged cruise ships from filing claims for damages or expenses related to personal injury, illness, or even death, in a U.S. court.

This provision is completely contrary to a general maritime law principle that has been around since at least the 12th century, a principle that has remained applicable because of the international nature of shipping and the plain fact that, even today, ship operators maintain considerable leverage over individual seafarers.

This provision also violates an international convention that the U.S. has ratified. Under the Shipowners' Liability Convention, national laws or regulations have to be interpreted and enforced to ensure equality of treatment to all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile, or race. This amendment would shred that international obligation.

It is also contrary to the principles and terms defining seafarers' rights under the International Maritime Labor Convention.

It is also worth mentioning that the amendment before us may be unnecessary because, in many cases, seafarer contracts contain binding arbitration clauses.

In any event, it makes no sense to deny access to U.S. courts for foreign

seafarers seeking compassion for maintenance and cure claims. The cruise lines can easily avoid frivolous lawsuits. All they need do is honor their longstanding customary responsibility to pay for the care and recovery of the seafarers they employ when they are ill or injured.

In closing, no one has provided any evidence--much less, compelling evidence--to justify the reversal of longstanding seafarer protections. In the absence of evidence, the House should reject this unwarranted amendment.

This vote is purely to injure seafarers, purely to disobey maritime conventions to which we are a party, purely to disobey laws of the sea from the 12th century that we have obeyed since we obtained our independence from England, for no purpose other than to help often American-owned--not always--but foreign-flagged cruise ship lines.

There is no purpose for this amendment. The House should reject this amendment as it has in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Chairman, it sounds nice to say they can go home to their country from which they came, where presumably the foreign-flagged ship operates, but that is not the case. These are often American-owned ships or European-owned ships, and they are flagged in a country of convenience--Liberia, Panama, or wherever--where the worker may have no connection whatsoever, where the ship, for that matter, has no real connection other than flying the flag of convenience, and where there may not be a very decent court system.

That is why the practice has been, since before our independence--it has worked well the entire history of our country--that a foreign citizen working on a ship that calls in the United States, if denied the maintenance and cure that the ship is supposed to take care of someone on the high seas, then they can sue in an American court. We have always done this. There has been no showing of hardship whatsoever.

Yes, some rich cruise line operators would like, perhaps, to get rid of this obligation, but that is no excuse. This is an antilabor, an antihuman amendment. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Hartzler Amendment.

Transgender individuals are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not. Selectively denying healthcare to trans servicemembers, which is available to other members of the military, only serves to alienate, undermine, disrespect and ultimately harm those serving our country.

This amendment is a shameful and targeted attempt to enact a conservative agenda that singles out transgender individuals. It circumvents, our military's doctors and uses the denial of healthcare to force currently serving, and future transgender members of our armed services from their posts entirely.

Transition related care is considered medically necessary by nearly every major medical association. It should not need to be said that when a military physician determines that hormones, surgery or other transition related care is necessary, we must treat it as we would any other medical care. Anything less is an abdication of our duty to provide healthcare to those who have chosen to serve our country.

Using finances to tie the hands of our military's medical professionals to target transgender individuals demonstrates an appalling lack of respect for our servicemembers, their doctors and the democratic ideals of equality our country was founded on. I urge my colleagues to support our servicemembers by opposing this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will strike section 1022 of the bill that prohibits the transfer or release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

We are currently imprisoning 41 people at Guantanamo, 26 of whom are being detained indefinitely without charge or trial, with no proceedings, no hearings, and no opportunity to plea their case, essentially forever.

Beyond existing as an affront to fundamental American values, Guantanamo is a dangerous counterproductive relic of the past. National security experts and our own military commanders agree that Guantanamo harms our national security by serving as a recruiting tool for terrorists and damaging our relationships with allies.

Furthermore, it is increasingly difficult to justify the annual cost of holding each Guantanamo detainee, which is now climbing to an incredible $10 million a year per detainee. Guantanamo is now the most expensive prison on Earth, costing U.S. taxpayers approximately $445 million per year. This is especially disappointing when you consider that each prisoner in Federal maximum security penitentiaries costs only $78,000 a year. Not only does our refusal to close Guantanamo diminish our legal and ethical reputation throughout the world, it also costs American citizens astronomical sums of money for no purpose.

We have made excellent progress towards reducing the numbers of prisoners, and we should continue to do so. About 35 percent of released prisoners were confirmed or suspected of returning to the battlefield during the Bush administration. But the Obama administration developed a robust framework to ensure released detainees were more closely supervised to reduce the likelihood of a return to the battlefield.

The Bush administration struck diplomatic bills to repatriate large batches of prisoners to countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in bulk, and many recidivists came from those batches.

By contrast, the Obama administration developed an individualized review process by six agencies to determine whether to recommend transferring a detainee. Over time, it also developed more careful diplomatic and monitoring plans with receiving countries to ease a prisoner's reintegration into that country's society.

When the first detainees arrived at Guantanamo in January 2002, America was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks, and the war in Afghanistan had only just begun. Yet, 15 years later, it is clear that the war on terror has dragged on for too long, as we have expanded our involvement in costly clashes in Yemen, Somalia, and Syria. In doing so, we have embroiled ourselves in needless, endless conflict, without an exit strategy or a clear strategy for success.

The recent vote for Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force in the House Appropriations Committee demonstrated that Congress is finally realizing a blank check for perpetual war must be reevaluated and reconsidered.

Similarly, as we reconsider the 2001 AUMF, I look forward to working together in a bipartisan manner to close the Guantanamo prison, reevaluate our approach to these detainees, and close another dark and sad chapter that has damaged our national honor.

Guantanamo's continued operation provides a momentous challenge to the founding principles of the United States, that no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law, and certainly may not be deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law, and for each day that its doors remain open, it becomes increasingly difficult for our Nation to claim the moral and ethical high ground.

We must close the detention facility at Guantanamo now, and this amendment will help us achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I will simply observe that this amendment prohibits the President from transferring prisoners.

Do you really think that Donald Trump, the current President, needs the prohibition that he would transfer prisoners to maximum security prisons in the United States if it weren't safe to do so?

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

Mr. Chairman, it costs the American taxpayer $10 million a year per detainee to keep a detainee in Guantanamo. To keep that same detainee in a Federal maximum security penitentiary in the United States would cost $78,000. That is a ridiculous waste of our military budget. Nobody has ever escaped from a Federal maximum security prison.

Transferring these prisoners to Federal maximum security prisons in the United States would pose no danger to anybody.

And yes, some of these prisoners may be the worst of the worst. Many are not. They were not all caught on the battlefield. Some of them were sold for bounties by people in different tribes or groups in Afghanistan. Some of them were not captured on battlefields at all. Some of them are innocent; some are not.

But to keep them in Guantanamo for $10 million each per year with no possibility of getting out is an affront to our values. It is an affront to our liberties. It is an affront to our military budget and to our pocketbooks, and it is, frankly, plain foolish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes. This amendment will strike section 1023 of the bill that prohibits the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. The provision is simply designed to further delay the transferred detainees out of Guantanamo and is unnecessary and counterproductive.

The arguments for this amendment and against it are essentially the arguments for and against the previous amendment that we just went through. That amendment prohibited the use of funds to transfer prisoners. This amendment prohibits the use of funds--this provision, rather, prohibits the use of funds to construct facilities in the United States to receive such transferees. It is essentially the same pros and cons.

I just want to mention, though, that yes, some of those detainees may be the worst of the worst, but they will still be detained. But some of them are not. They are people who were caught up in bounty situations where they were sold for money because we were giving a bounty if someone claimed that so and so had been in combat against us, but we didn't really know.

We now know mistakes were made. We may choose to say some of these people can go home, and others can stay in the United States. It is simply, again, a question that we shouldn't be

spending $10 million a person, instead of $78,000 a person, to hold them in secure facilities.

The other thing that Ms. Stefanik of New York said I must comment on, she said we are holding people in Guantanamo because if we transfer them to the United States they will enjoy the constitutional rights of prisoners in the United States, and that we don't want to do, for whatever reason. She didn't say.

But the fact of the matter is, Guantanamo was built for that purpose because it was thought by the Bush administration initially that people held outside of the Continental United States, in Guantanamo, which is in Cuba, not the United States, would not enjoy constitutional rights, could not use the writ of habeas corpus and other things.

However, a series of Supreme Court decisions said that was wrong. The prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as prisoners held in prisons in the Continental United States, so there is no difference on that whatsoever. You can look up the Supreme Court decisions. They are not secret.

And what it comes down to is a prejudice against holding people here because of a ridiculous fear that people will escape from maximum security prisons, which no one has ever done in the United States, and we can't hold dangerous terrorists here, and we shouldn't release terrorists.

But nobody is talking about releasing terrorists. And you can hold dangerous terrorists and dangerous mobsters, dangerous all kinds of people, in maximum security facilities in the United States.

There are really two things we should do: bring them to maximum security facilities in the United States because it saves a lot of money and because it removes a major recruiting tool for our enemies abroad. And, within constitutional rights, people should have the opportunity to have a hearing.

What is most offensive is not that they are at Guantanamo, as opposed to some prison in the United States, what is most offensive is that we are holding some people without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever.

And yes, we have held people as prisoners of war during the pendency of a war. But we don't claim these people are prisoners of war. We don't give them the rights of prisoners of war. We are just holding them. I am not sure how we are holding them, but we are holding them with no claim of any kind of due process, with no finding that they have, in fact, been terrorists in an individual case; and that is just against all American values.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, no one is proposing to release these people, although some probably should be released, but no one is proposing that, so take that red herring off the table.

Second of all, I, too, have visited Guantanamo, and I don't know how you tell by visiting Guantanamo that these prisoners are the worst of the worst, or not, just by looking at them.

Thirdly, again, they have the same constitutional rights there as here, so you are not changing anything. And bringing them to maximum security facilities in the United States, while it may cost some money if you had to increase the facilities first, instead of spending $445 million, or $10 million a detainee, you would be spending $78,000 a detainee, which would free up your military budget, part of it, for other things.

There is simply no rational reason for keeping these people in a military base in Guantanamo which simply serves as a recruiting tool and a measuring rod for our enemies abroad. So again, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003. This legislation would withhold needed law enforcement funding from cities that choose not to assist Federal authorities in enforcing the immigration laws.

Besides being constitutionally suspect, this bill is also highly counterproductive. Recognizing that good policing depends on building trust with their residents, many cities forbid their law enforcement officers from questioning victims of crime or witnesses to a crime about their immigration status, and they do not share immigration information with Federal authorities.

They believe that their communities are at greater risk when a victim of domestic violence is afraid to ask the police for protection from her abuser for fear of deportation, or when witnesses to a murder refuse to assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator because they are afraid their immigration status will be discovered.

These cities have concluded that taking on themselves the Federal responsibility to enforce immigration laws would destroy trust between immigrants and local law enforcement, which would make everyone less safe.

Perversely, this bill would punish these cities by denying them the funds that they need to protect public safety. Funding to hire new police officers, grants to combat the opioid crisis, and money to reduce the rape kit backlog could all be taken away under this bill. Not only does this raise serious constitutional concerns, it is simply bad policy that will lead to more crime, not less.

As if this were not bad enough, the bill would also authorize mandatory indefinite detention of certain categories of immigrants without sufficient due process even if they present no danger to their communities.

Indefinite detention is repugnant to our values of fairness and individual liberty, but this bill perpetuates the ugly myth that immigrants are more dangerous and likely to commit more crimes than native-born Americans, and it erodes the fundamental protections that we guarantee to all who are present in this country.

Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill demonizes immigrants, punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and law enforcement, and authorizes indefinite detention of certain immigrants, all while making us less safe.

For each of these reasons, this bill should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This draconian legislation would dramatically expand the penalties for illegal reentry into the United States, even for people who have committed minor and nonviolent offenses.

Although most people who illegally reenter the country do so to reunite with their families or to flee violence or persecution, this bill considers them all dangerous criminals who deserve lengthy prison sentences.

This bill is nothing less than fearmongering, based on the widely debunked myth that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born Americans when, in fact, we know it is just the opposite.

Let me tell you about one of these supposed dangerous criminals who was mercifully released from ICE custody just yesterday, after 4 months in detention.

In 1986, 17-year-old Carlos Cardona illegally entered the United States, having fled threats of violence in his native Colombia. At age 21, he made a foolish mistake and committed a nonviolent drug offense. He served 45 days in prison, and, ever since then, for the last 27 years, he has lived a crime-free and a productive life as an active member of his community in Queens, New York.

Not only that, after the September 11 attacks on this country, he volunteered as a recovery worker at Ground Zero. Like so many other workers there, due to his sacrifice, he developed acute respiratory issues from the toxic fumes and other illnesses that have put his life in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, although he is married to an American citizen, he was unable to adjust his immigration status because of his decades-old conviction. However, he was allowed to stay in the country in recognition of his services after 9/11, as long as he checked in periodically with immigration authorities, which he did.

But shortly after President Trump took office, Mr. Cardona was detained after appearing for a routine appointment with ICE, and he was placed in deportation proceedings and in custody. It was only thanks to a major public campaign and the compassion of Governor Cuomo, who pardoned his almost 30-year-old drug conviction, that he was released.

Under this legislation, had Mr. Cardona been deported and then illegally reentered the country to see his wife and daughter, he would face up to 10 years in prison because of his decades-old prior conviction. Even if he presented himself to border agents and sought asylum, on the reasonable basis that he had reasonable fears because, in fact, two of his brothers back in Colombia have been murdered, he would still be subject to prosecution and massive penalties, just for appearing at the border.

This is both callous and irrational. This bill would dramatically expand the mass incarceration of immigrants, even for those with minor offenses and those who simply seek refuge in our country.

It serves no purpose, increases no one's safety, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this cruel legislation.