Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

We asked him about veterans who are being deported. We asked him why American citizens were increasingly having their families broken up by deportation. We asked him about the 800,000 young people who signed up for DACA and the hundreds of thousands of long-term residents of the U.S. who have temporary protected status. He really had no answers.

We know he is on board with Trump's agenda to deport millions and millions of people or he would not have been appointed to his position. But, honestly, he seemed not to understand what his own agency does, the statutory powers he has as Secretary of Homeland Security under current law, or, for that matter, even how Congress works--so naive.

Let me give Members some examples.

Number one, Francisca Lino lives in Chicago, and her husband and six children are U.S. citizens. For nearly a decade, she stayed out of trouble and reported every year to immigration authorities.

Now people who work for the Secretary decided she must leave the country and leave her American citizen children and her American citizen husband this August. Why? What changed, Mr. Secretary? Absolutely nothing, except you.

The same goes for Jesus Lara in Ohio. He has four American citizen children who have lived their entire lives here but their family is being broken up by their own government.

According to the Secretary, the courts are deporting them, not he or his agency. He denied any responsibility and said he can't do anything about it. But we all know the Secretary of Homeland Security has extraordinary powers to spare families from deportation, especially when doing so would not be in our national interest.

I told him he could just pick up the phone and stop the deportation of Ms. Lino and Mr. Lara and spare the American people the cruelty and the hardship. But he is hiding behind the old ``it is out of my hands'' bureaucratic dodge and the old ``I am just following orders'' defense-- the general following orders.

But, General, that is completely invalid because we know you have the power to do the right thing.

On TPS, a program that currently allows hundreds of thousands of people to live and work here legally, the Secretary has almost unilateral power to extend it. But the Secretary was like: Well, I don't know what I'm gonna do. They have been here a long time. I don't know what I'm gonna do. I have to decide.

What kind of answer is that, Mr. Secretary?

To me this means that hundreds of thousands of people's lives, the lives that have been built in the United States, are about to be turned upside down. He wants to take hundreds of thousands of legally documented immigrants and make them undocumented and then go after them and their families. How does that make America great?

Then there is DACA, the program where 800,000 children and young adults came forward and registered with the government, went through a background check and were rechecked periodically. Now Secretary Kelly says he thinks DACA is illegal, and, once again, it is out of his hands--and up to whom? Do you know whom he says it is up to? Attorney General Jeff Sessions--only America's number one opponent of immigration of any kind.

So to me this is our call to action. The way we rose up to support women and Planned Parenthood, we have to do that again and again. The way lawyers and patriotic Americans stood at airports to protect refugees and religious freedom, well, now it is time to protect TPS, DREAMers, and other families in the crosshairs.

We are going to have to organize, mobilize, and stand with our allies to protect families, to protect American citizens in those families, and to defend

communities because these guys are serious. They want to deport millions of people, and they are coming after the DREAMers and those with deep, long-term lives in the U.S.

This is our call to action. We must resist. We must rise up and stand up for American values. Whether the President, the Secretary, or the Attorney General likes it or not, we need to make it clear that immigrants and immigration are here to stay.

Last May, the Secretary of Homeland Security set an edict. He told over 55,000 Haitians: You have got 6 months. Get your paperwork ready. You are leaving the country.

Then he is going to come after hundreds of thousands of Central Americans that are here legally in this country and have been here for 10, 15, and 20 years. He is telling them also: Get your affairs in order. You are going to be deported from the United States. I am eliminating your legal status.

When it comes to DREAMers, I want to make it absolutely clear to everyone today that he is going to end the program, and he is going to begin that process this September. He says: Oh, I like them. They are nice people, but there is nothing I can do. I am just going to talk to my buddy, General Jeff Sessions.

Jeff Sessions has never liked the program when he was a U.S. Senator, and now he is the Attorney General. They will eliminate the program, putting 800,000 people in the crosshairs of deportation.

We have the moment to rise up.

(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)

It is the moment to resist, they are coming to destroy our communities, they are coming to deport dreamers. Let's stand up! Get organized and resist.

Es el momento de resistir, vienen a destruir nuestra comunidad, vienen a deportar a los sonadores. Parecen, organizasen y resistan.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes on Tuesday, July 11, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 345 and 346.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to everyone's attention, especially my Democratic colleagues, a troubling incident that transpired over the recess.

It is important that people hear about how women and the LGBT community are treated at the highest levels of the current Puerto Rican government and the values and politics that run deeply throughout the politics of statehood for Puerto Rico.

It is fair to say that in the era of Trump, admitting a Spanish- speaking Caribbean country as the 51st State would depend on the strength of democratic votes, so it is important for my Democratic colleagues in particular to understand who the statehooders really are and what they really stand for, beyond their rhetoric in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, ever since Donald Trump descended the golden escalators at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers, the Republican Party has had Mexican fever, and they have been working feverishly to paint immigrants all as criminals. And when something goes bad, they go back to their old favorite.

When Trump's Muslim ban was blocked in the courts, out came the Attorney General to say they were doing everything they could to do more roundups and that no immigrant was safe in America.

The Russia investigation not going well for the dear leader at the White House? Hey, let's whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice-President Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted.

Healthcare not going well? Let's just hate some Mexicans today.

Listen, almost 8 out of 10 Latinos in the United States are citizens, 1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves 1 in 10 who are undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of us, whether we are citizens or not of the United States of America.

These bills are nothing new, and they are not really about fighting crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos ``in their place.'' Latinos, African Americans, Muslims, women, they know what it is like to be targeted.

Ninety-nine percent of the votes for this bill today will come from people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves, for their children, or the people who they represent, but let's be clear. Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster child for the kinds of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in the country, and we know the results.

Sheriff Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people because they are brown. Oh, we will sort out their papers later, he says, whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or whatever.

I have talked to U.S. citizens who were detained by Sheriff Arpaio because they didn't carry with them their birth certificate or a passport at all times in the country in which they were born.

Let's be clear. Sheriff Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his racial profiling, and he has been charged criminally in Federal court for his racial profiling tactics, and still the Republicans of the House want to make

the law he is being sued for legal in the United States of America.

Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice, for what is right when the chips are down. Well, the chips are down, and every immigrant family and every immigrant in America is going to remember who stood up for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep families together when the chips were down.

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, June is Immigrant Heritage Month in the United States, but to celebrate that, House Republicans have made this anti-immigration week in the Congress.

The advocates against legal immigration have their annual talk radio festival here in D.C. this week to extol the virtues of cutting off legal immigration.

Dozens of conservative talk radio hosts set up remote broadcasts here to talk about why criminalizing immigrants and turning misdemeanors into felonies is a good thing for America. They may trade stories, while broadcasting on the air, about immigrants doing horribly bad things to people in America, as if we were in a national crime spree of Brown people killing White people.

The goal of talk radio hosts is to reinforce the anti-immigration fever that has gripped the Republican Party and allowed a tough- sounding game show host to take over their party.

The main organization behind the gathering of talk radio hosts is FAIR, the Federation Against American Immigration Reform, which we should note is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is the organization in Alabama most directly responsible for suing the KKK out of the mainstream.

It is like D. W. Griffith might rise up from his grave to film ``Rebirth of a Nation--the Sequel'' because FAIR and its allies want to take our immigration policies back to the 1920s when the Klan marched openly in Washington and legal immigration was reduced to almost zero. They want to get rid of anyone here who is deportable or could be deportable by passing new laws to criminalize them.

Now, to coincide with the talk radio anti-immigration week, Republicans are putting on a passion play of their own in the House of Representatives by bringing two anti-immigrant bills to the floor.

So we have a coordinated campaign from broadcasters, lawmakers, and the anti-immigration advocates to pressure Congress into passing bills to paint immigrants as a threat to our national and community safety-- right out of the Trump playbook.

The question is not whether or not these bills will pass the House-- they will pass--but whether Democrats will be tempted to vote for tough-sounding measures because they are afraid to be labeled by conservative talk radio hosts as weak on punishing the ``murdering, rapist, drug-dealing Mexicans'' they think are lurking in every alley.

Of course, that is not what these bills actually do at all. Truth and talk radio do not often go together--certainly not in the era of Trump.

Let's look at the two bills Republicans are bringing for a vote.

One bill is H.R. 3004, named for Kate Steinle, a young woman who was shot and killed by an immigrant nearly 2 years ago in San Francisco. It happened in July, and as you may remember, I was the first person to come to the floor and give a speech denouncing Kate's killer and calling for laws that keep people like him off the streets.

A week later, while talking about various immigration issues in Spanish with Telemundo, a quote was included in a story about Kate Steinle's killing. After it was aired, rightwing groups circulated it, alleging it was proof that I was insensitive to the Steinle family, when, in fact, I was not speaking about Kate Steinle at the time, and I had already spoken out specifically on Kate's death here on the floor.

But what is coming to the floor this week would not have kept Kate Steinle's killer off the streets. It would have had no impact on that case whatsoever. Instead, we are voting on a bill to put other people in different circumstances in jail for longer periods of time.

It is a bait-and-switch strategy: use a horrible tragedy to sell a policy that would not have prevented that death so that we put more immigrants in jail for longer periods of time and prevent them from ever living legally in the United States.

The other bill, H.R. 3003, is designed to take money away from America's largest cities and counties, specifically from efforts to fight crime--yes, take money away from them. Grants that would help local police fight crime would be eliminated under this bill from 600 of the country's largest jurisdictions. That doesn't sound like crime fighting, because it isn't.

So why are we doing this? Because Republicans in Washington think they have a better idea of how to fight crime than the county executives, State legislators, mayors, and local police chiefs. ``Do what we say or we will take away your money'' is what the Republicans are saying to big cities and counties.

That is the approach being taken by the conservatives who always talk about how State and local people should be trusted more and protected from Federal mandates. Well, I guess, not when it comes to immigrants. This is why these types of bills are opposed by the National Fraternal Order of Police and other police organizations.

So to all the talk radio hosts and advocacy groups: Why are you on the side opposing the National Fraternal Order of Police? And why would any Democrat want to cross that blue line to stand with you?

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes Monday, June 26, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call votes 323 and 324.

Mr. Speaker, so the ruling party in Puerto Rico staged an election, and they are very proud of the results. They say 97 percent of Puerto Ricans support statehood and that the United States should grant statehood right away because of it.

Yeah, they got 97 percent of the vote. That is pretty impressive; the kind of numbers that would make Putin jealous and Saddam Hussein green with envy if he weren't dead already.

The reason why the statehooders got 97 percent of the vote was pretty much the same reason those two guys get 97 percent of the vote: only one political party participated.

All the other parties thought the election was so rigged and so predetermined for the outcome the sponsors wanted that they didn't even think it was worth participating.

The vast majority of Puerto Ricans agree. Only 23 percent of the people voted. Seventy-seven percent boycotted the election because they didn't think it was worth their time; and they were absolutely right, but I guess in the era of alternative facts and made-up statistics about how many people attend your inauguration, you can try to make a one-party vote of 23 percent of the people look like a mandate for statehood. But I am here to warn my fellow Democrats not to believe the hype for one second.

Those who are peddling the fantasy of statehood sometimes call themselves Democrats, but we should be aware of an elephant in donkey's clothing.

Let's look at leaders of the statehood party here in Washington. Our colleague, the Resident Commissioner who ran on the statehood ticket, is a Republican who caucuses with the Republicans here in the House. She is a proud supporter of Donald Trump and pals around with Steve King and other Members who we might say aren't too friendly to Latinos and Latino causes, much less the Democratic Party line.

The Governor's Washington, D.C., office is headed by a Republican, Carlos Mercader, who was appointed to the position by Governor Rossello after serving as executive director of the rightwing political organization called Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, infamous for its constant bashing, yes, of President Obama.

That is who is pushing statehood in D.C., which makes me wonder why any Democrat would be embracing them, especially the chairman of the DNC, unless, of course, as the media reports, it is a payback for votes for DNC chairmanship.

And as for Governor Ricardo Rossello, leader of the statehood party, the ``Democrat,'' his conservative record speaks for itself, even though he has only been in office for less than a year.

As a candidate, he sided with the bondholders and vulture capital funds and opposed any debt restructuring for Puerto Rico, saying that Puerto Rico should pay its debt in full to Wall Street speculators, in spite of massive cuts that that would entail for police, fire, health, pensions, roads, and schools.

He hosted, yes, a Democrat, the GOP Presidential candidate, Ben Carson; and the Governor opposes LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, and opposes the teaching of gender equality in the schools.

Townhall, the uber conservative website, sees a kindred spirit in Governor Rossello, the Democrat, praising him for his conservative approach to helping bondholders over schoolchildren. And the Governor has withheld his criticism of President Trump, which few Democrats are able to resist, and for Latino Democrats is darn near impossible unless you are just playing the Democratic role to get ahead.

When confronted with the obvious, that Trump has denigrated Mexicans as rapists and murderers, promised to build a wall to keep Latinos out, and sneered at Puerto Rico's desire for what Donald Trump called a bailout, Rossello responded, saying of the President: ``My view is I don't know that he is anti-Latino. Obviously, I have heard some derogatory remarks, but I don't know him personally, and it doesn't deter me.''

So instead of spending money to help children whose schools are closing, to fix roads that are falling apart, or to pay doctors enough to prevent them from leaving Puerto Rico and going to Florida, it seems the entire Puerto Rican government is now dedicated to pursuing the unlikely chance of statehood.

It is certainly useful as a distraction from what the Governor and his D.C. operatives are actually doing.

Mr. Speaker, I have said this before: I hope to be buried one day on that beautiful island of Puerto Rico. But when I am buried, I hope it happens in a free, sovereign nation that has thrown off the yoke of colonialism and dependence on an overseas master, just as this country did, the United States of America, the country in which I was born.

I look forward to celebrating the Fourth of July. In the meantime, I think it is important to warn my fellow Democrats that they should get no more in bed with the statehooders than with any other group of rightwing conservatives with an agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Tuesday, June 20, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 309 and 310.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Refugee Day, a day set aside by the United Nations to reflect upon those in crisis and dedicate ourselves to helping those we can help.

To mark this solemn occasion, today, the Judiciary Committee House Republicans will vote to slash refugee resettlement numbers, cut back aid to those fleeing violence and persecution for their religious or political beliefs, and make it harder for children fleeing violence, especially those from Central America, from receiving asylum from the richest, most powerful Nation in the world.

Tell me, how does that make America great again, Mr. Speaker?

According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, there are more than 65 million people--a record number today--who have been forcibly displaced from their homes. More than 21 million are refugees. Eighty- six percent of the world's refugees are now finding refuge in the developing world, with only 14 percent finding refuge in developed countries like the U.S. or European nations.

Worldwide, more than half of all refugees are children. So when anti- immigrant leaders, websites, and TV networks paint those fleeing the Middle East, Africa, and Asia as hardened jihadists, or those fleeing Central America as gangbangers and drug dealers, remember, most of them are just kids--little kids. That is what we are talking about, fleeing their country for their lives.

Mr. Speaker, America has, throughout our history, been a beacon of hope to refugees fleeing religious attacks, facing government intolerance and persecution, ethnic strife, or unsustainable poverty.

Beginning in the 1840s, when the potato crop disappeared because of a blight in Ireland, the Irish people were left starving. Over 8 million people in Ireland, 3 to 4 million of them faced starvation. About 1 million died mostly of starvation and disease.

Another 2 million came where?

To America.

According to a recent article in The Irish Times: ``Panic had set in by the winter of 1846/47. People risked winter voyages across the Atlantic on unsanitary, unsafe `coffin ships.' ''

The article continues: ``People were placed in quarantine stations, or held onboard ships docked at ports.''

``Refugees experienced violent and racist reactions. Liverpool, Glasgow'' . . . ``Montreal, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia sought unsuccessfully to restrict entry'' of the Irish.

A lot of this sounds familiar to me today when we discuss the Muslim ban that the courts have blocked and which motivated thousands of Americans to go to airports to demand that the United States honor its visas and honor its commitment to refugees, or as the House Judiciary Committee meets today, to punish children for fleeing for their lives.

Roughly 32 million Americans trace their roots to Ireland. That is about 10 percent of the U.S. population. And let's be clear, the British rulers over Ireland were not sending what they consider their best people. They were poor, they were uneducated, and U.S. politicians at the time said that they were sending rapists, murderers, and drunks, even as some, they assumed, were good people.

They were from a religion that threatened the United States. They were Catholics who were as foreign to American Protestants, in some regards, as Muslims are today.

But who can imagine America without the Irish today?

You look down the list of generals, Presidents, Members of Congress, and every aspect of American society today, and we can all say, to some degree, we are Irish.

As House Republicans vote today to pass bills to keep out the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, as we pass laws to pull up the drawbridge and put a big ``Do Not Enter'' sign on the Statue of Liberty, I hope my Republican colleagues who can trace roots back to someone who came across the water and risked everything and bet their lives on the United States, I hope all of us will reflect on those ancestors as we deliberate laws and how we would have kept so many of them out.

His Holiness Pope Francis, who we all remember just spoke steps away from where I am at right now, reminded us to always follow the Golden Rule in all our deliberations. Pope Francis said just this past Sunday that the nations of the world should continue to welcome refugees; and each of us, as individuals, can learn a lot by meeting with, speaking with, and breaking bread with refugees.

His Holiness said: `` . . . personal meetings with refugees can dissolve fears and distorted ideologies and become paths for growth in humanity.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues have been listening, as we have a Speaker who is both Catholic and Irish, but I fear they will not.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House chamber for votes Monday, June 12, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 300 and 301.

Mr. Speaker, the saga continues, and there seems to be no end in sight for the Trump administration's growing legal and ethical problems. Every day another shoe drops, or at least another foot is inserted into the administration's mouth.

The testimony of James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week showed us that this is no longer just a matter of foreign intelligence and the Russian meddling in American elections. While that is very important and we need to address the

foreign intelligence and security aspects of that matter, the very important question of how we keep Russia from hacking our elections in the future, what is clear is that the investigations into the Trump administration are now matters for the Judiciary Committee.

The gentlewoman from California, Senator Feinstein, and I were on CNN this weekend, and we made the point that the Judiciary Committee has the oversight responsibility for the Justice Department, therefore, it is time for the committee to do its job.

That was the theme of my speech here last week, and nothing has happened. It is also the reason I wrote to Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte last week to request that he take action, hold hearings, begin preparations for the hearings that will come--and they will come--because the silence of the Judiciary Committee has been deafening so far.

As soon as President Trump said on Friday he was willing to testify under oath 100 percent, I wrote Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte to say the committee should schedule a hearing and take the President at his word.

Now, I don't think the chairman will invite the President, a man he campaigned for, because the role of the House Judiciary Committee right now is to protect the President at all costs, shielding the President from tough questions instead of representing the people's interest.

In doing so, Judiciary Republicans and House Republicans in general are getting deeper and deeper into bed with this President. You see, they have a whole agenda, and they are counting on this President to help them cut taxes for people with trust funds while cutting healthcare, education, child care, civil rights and voting rights for people who work for a living.

Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee ought to be in the middle of congressional examinations of the Trump administration, and so far they have been on the sidelines.

Is it no longer the practice of the House of Representatives to hold oversight hearings? Is it no longer the practice of this body to hold the executive branch and the White House accountable?

I have never seen an administration more in need of congressional oversight than this one, yet the Congress does not dare do anything that might cause the President to call someone out in one of his dawn Twitter rants.

We know that the administration has a policy now--this administration--of not cooperating with congressional oversight, instructing agencies not to comply with inquiries from members of Congress unless they are a committee chairman, all of whom happen to be Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the President and his administration are accountable to over 320 million Americans, all 435 Members of this body and 100 Senators as well, regardless of their party affiliation.

At least one senior senator called this policy opposing congressional oversight nonsense. To his credit, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Mr. Grassley of Iowa, is not impacted by the Trump administration policy because he is a chairman, but he spoke out forcefully against the Presidential obstruction. See, my friends, that is how you do it, the way Mr. Grassley did it. Follow his example.

And then there is our old friend, the former Speaker and an adviser to the President, Mr. Gingrich, who is now advising the President to terminate Mr. Mueller, the former FBI Director investigating the President and his subordinates, including the family members of the President. Mr. Gingrich said Mueller was a superb choice with an impeccable reputation for fairness just a couple of weeks ago, but now he says there is no way Mueller can be fair. He wants the President to fire Mueller and he wants a political fight against the very idea of special prosecutors.

Now, Mr. Gingrich has been joined in this chorus by a Trump confidante and golf buddy, the president of Newsmax, who says the President is contemplating firing Mueller.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to see the President on a fast track to impeachment, then he should take this advice and fire Mueller. If you want to see this President in the express lane to impeachment, no ifs, ands, or buts, then go for it. We dare you.

Even the Judiciary Committee, which has shown no interest in doing anything other than rubber stamping this administration's agenda, would be forced to take action.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber for votes Tuesday, June 6, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call votes 286 and 287.

Mr. Speaker, we waste a lot of time in the House Judiciary Committee passing bills we have already passed year after year that go nowhere. But now evidence is growing that our elections were interfered with by a foreign adversary, evidence that the President and Attorney General have been less than truthful about their meetings and relationship with this foreign adversary. And other committees in this body and the Senate and at the Justice Department have launched investigations into the behavior and truthfulness of the President, his subordinates, his family; but from the House Judiciary Committee, we have heard exactly nothing, not a peep, not a hearing or a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets.

When I joined the Judiciary Committee, I remember hearing something about how the committee has jurisdiction over the enforcement of laws, the courts, the conduct of the executive branch, especially when it comes to law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Justice Department, activities that may or may not be criminal.

And guess what. I was right. You need look no further than the committee's website, where it proudly proclaims: ``The committee's weighty agenda has frequently placed it in a central role in American politics, most notably during its consideration of impeachment charges against Presidents of the United States in both 1974 and 1998.''

So with all due respect to the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, and our colleagues in the Senate, it is the Judiciary Committee in the House where impeachment begins. We are like the grand jury of the House of Representatives when it comes to impeachment.

Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director investigating the President, will not be able to indict him while he is President no matter what he uncovers. Most legal scholars argue a sitting President cannot be indicted in criminal court.

So it is the Judiciary Committee that will bring charges if there is evidence of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' as provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

But here we are with evidence that the Attorney General lied to a committee of Congress about his contacts with senior Russian officials and lied on his security clearance application about contacts with Russian officials who are suspected by our government of being covert espionage operatives, with evidence that hacking and other activities, in fact, took place directed by Russia. And nothing from the Judiciary Committee.

The Attorney General publicly recused himself from any matters at the Justice Department related to the investigation of Russia contacts, but the Attorney General played a role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey. And we know now, because the President said so, that the firing of Comey, the FBI Director that was investigating him, was done because the

President said he was ``under great pressure'' from the Russia investigation. And still nothing from the Judiciary Committee.

Now, let's go back to those two dates when the Judiciary Committee says we played a central role in American politics. In 1974, we had a criminal conspiracy that involved tampering with elections that went all the way to the Oval Office. It involved firing senior Justice Department officials who were part of the investigation. They asked the intelligence community to discredit those investigations in 1974. And there were secretly recorded conversations.

Sound familiar?

President Nixon soon resigned because he knew what was coming.

In 1998, the issue of whether the President of the United States had lied to a grand jury about an extramarital sexual encounter with a consenting adult who was a subordinate, that is what that was about. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde of the great State of Illinois, who, as it turned out, knew a thing or two about extramarital sexual encounters with consenting adults, passed four Articles of Impeachment, along an almost exclusively party-line vote. An impeachment trial was held in the Senate, which became an epic embarrassment to the Republican Party and to this body. But now, given all of the evidence of electoral tampering, the apparent efforts to cover it up, the actions of the President and the Attorney General to deflect and derail investigations, that, to me and to others, appears to be attempts at or actual obstruction of justice.

From the committee of jurisdiction that is supposed to be in charge and taking action, what do we have? Not a peep, not a hearing, not a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets.

Mr. Speaker, that has got to change, and I suspect it will, because it has to. The Constitution says it has to.

Judiciary Committee, it is time to act and fulfill your constitutional responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, I will not mince words. Anyone who votes for this bill is voting to support and implement Donald Trump's views on immigration, his desire to militarize our southern border, and his fantasy of a mass deportation force. You cannot spin it any other way.

If we want to lower the standards for screening and hiring CBP officers, eliminate checks that could help weed out candidates with criminal histories or criminal intentions, and water down the integrity of this important national security source, this bill is for you.

But if you care about border security and the integrity of the officers, you should join me in voting against the bill.

To me and a lot of other people watching this debate, this is about something else. Remember that man descending the golden escalators at Trump Tower announcing his campaign for President by saying Mexicans who come to the U.S. are rapists, drug dealers, and murderers? Remember him? Do you want to buy into his vision of immigrants as a brown horde intent on doing America harm?

If you are onboard with this, you are also onboard with building a wall; onboard with billions to be spent on deporting moms and dads who have lived here for decades; going after DREAMers as the Trump administration is doing today, deporting DREAMers from the United States of America. Where do you want to draw the line on the Trump deportation agenda? I say draw the line right here, right now, and don't give another inch. There are many ways to secure the Nation, but watering down the hiring standards of our men and women in uniform should not be one of them. Let's secure the border. Let's have them have the same test at the border that you have a DEA agent, FBI agent, Secret Service agent. What are we going to do? Not have them take polygraph tests? That is going to make America safe. I doubt it.