Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1051 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule makes in order one bill dealing with a pressing legal issue.
Mr. Speaker, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, an immigrant convicted of certain felonies is subject to deportation. In order to qualify for this particular provision of the INA, an immigrant must be convicted of a crime of violence.
The statute defines ``crime of violence'' as an offense that, ``by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.''
This has been a longstanding and roundly accepted policy of the U.S. Government. For years, we have deported dangerous criminal immigrants.
However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that how the law defined ``crime of violence'' was impermissibly vague. The result of the ruling threw all of these kinds of deportation cases into question.
Historically, this realm of immigration law has never been an area of law to which the Court has applied constitutional rights. But writing the ruling for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan applied due process rights afforded by the Constitution to the removal process of criminal immigrants. Because the Court applied the Constitution in this manner, it concluded that the term ``crime of violence'' could be applied arbitrarily and unpredictably.
Chief Justice John Roberts warned of the path down which this ruling could lead as it pertains to other provisions of Federal criminal law. In fact, his concerns were justifiable.
In May, the Tenth Circuit struck down a similar provision in another portion of Federal law relating to using weapons in the commission of a crime. That particular case resulted in the sentence of a man convicted for firebombing a store with a Molotov cocktail being vacated.
Then again, in August, the D.C. Circuit struck down convictions of two men who were convicted for a violent criminal act. This ruling opened up the possibility that convictions for criminal acts involving firearms can be overturned.
Mr. Speaker, this is the backdrop against which we consider this bill today. This legislation, the Community Safety and Security Act, plugs the gaps in Federal law created by these recent court rulings.
It specifies the circumstances by which a criminal offense should be construed as a crime of violence. In particular, a crime of violence will include crimes of murder, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, domestic violence, human trafficking, and many other types of violent acts.
By clearly outlining Congress' intent of what constitutes a violent crime, this bill will eliminate the Court's concerns about ambiguity and will allow our law enforcement agencies to continue carrying out their duties to protect the American public.
Mr. Speaker, law and order is a crucial component of a healthy society. We are beginning to see the effects of feel-good policies in some locales on the crime rate in those areas, particularly the violent crime rate. When law and order breaks down in our communities, the residents suffer.
I am confident there is no intention to erode law and order or embolden criminals. However, the effects are just the same. That is why this legislation is so critical.
We need to ensure that there is a clear definition of violent crime, so that courts across this country are not boxed in by this Supreme Court ruling and do not have to vacate sentences or release violent criminals onto our streets.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent more than 2 decades fighting crime, both at the Federal level and in my own community. The impact of crime, and violent crime in particular, on victims is heartbreaking. Watching someone suffer the worst of societal ills is bad enough when justice is served. But watching a victim suffer not just the crime, but the lack of justice, is infuriating.
We need to fix this loophole carved by these rulings and defend our communities from criminals. We need to stand up for victims of violent crime and see that the justice that we all want for them is served.
I support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of my friend. I have no Members here to speak, and I am prepared to close if my friend is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate my friend from Florida and his views on open and closed rules and the importance of open rules and the importance of amendments and the importance to an open process.
The fact is the Democrats continue to focus on closed rules versus open rules, ignoring the structured amendment process, which has routinely been used by both majorities.
If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to clarify a couple of points for the record. Sixteen of the closed rules cited by the minority were rolling back regulations under the Congressional Review Act, which does not allow for amendments, to ensure that only a majority vote is required in the Senate.
Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the majority put out a call for amendments but received no amendments.
And if my friends from the other side of the aisle believe that open rules are the only measure of success, it is only fair that we clarify for the American people the Democrat majority's record.
In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing open to closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. This majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a Democrat sponsor and/or cosponsor.
In fact, as of July 24, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress, in which we serve now, have provided for the consideration of over 1,650 amendments on the House floor; over 745 Democrat amendments, or 45 percent of the total number of amendments; over 630 Republican amendments or 38 percent of the total amendments; and over 280 bipartisan amendments, or 17 percent of the total amendments.
In the 114th Congress, the last Congress to have served, the Republican majority allowed over 1,700 amendments to be considered on the House floor.
In the 113th Congress the Republican majority allowed over 1,500 amendments to be considered on the House floor.
And in the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.
I just wanted to make sure that we put into perspective the arguments from my friend.
Mr. Speaker, it is really fairly simple. Law and order is being jeopardized as it relates to the term, ``crime of violence.'' This bill plugs the gap left in our laws by the court's ruling.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different viewpoints across this country about our criminal justice and immigration system, but there are two nearly universally held beliefs by Americans: one, criminals should receive justice; and two, criminal immigrants should be deported.
While we can debate many aspects of our criminal code, we must not waiver in our commitment to protect the American people from criminals and to bring justice to victims. There have been numerous cases lately of immigrants committing violent crimes against Americans. Some of these cases are too recent to even mention by name here today. We must stand with victims and their families and remove criminal immigrants from this country. It is unjust to do anything else.
Our country is great, in part, because of our commitment to law and order. It is wrong to pursue a softening of our response to violent crime. To do so would invite more crime and produce more victims.
We must uphold the rule of law in America. Americans want it. Americans deserve it. That is exactly what this bill does. It defines violent crimes so that our immigration and criminal justice systems will have the tools necessary to remove violent immigrants from our country.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to support this bill. Uphold law and order. Vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the resolution. And vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.