Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Jim McLoughlin, an outspoken advocate for working families for over forty years. The San Antonio Redevelopment Plan's twelve story tower located in the heart of downtown San Jose, constructed in 1975 and 1976 thanks in large part to his efforts, will be renamed in Jim's honor.

Jim first joined Local 428 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (then the Retail Clerks International Association) in 1937 as a clerk at Piggly Wiggly. A quick learner and a natural leader, he was elected to lead Local 428 that same year. His leadership continued for the next forty-three years, during which time Jim expressed solidarity for his brethren in labor throughout the world by serving as a trade union delegate to labor organizations in China, Argentina, Israel, Iceland and Sweden.

Jim dedicated his life to organizing and civic engagement. He was a member of the Committee on Political Education and the AFL-CIO for over forty years. He participated on various state task forces, including Governor Pat Brown's Committee on Automation and Employment in 1958, the Industrial Commission-Mercantile Wage Board in 1972 and the California Attorney General's Volunteer Advisory Council in 1973. Serving as Vice President among the 1.5 million members in the California Labor Federation from 1972 to 1980, Jim made a substantial impact for a generation of working families in California.

Committed to social justice, Jim became a lifetime member of the NAACP in 1955 and was a delegate to the Labor Assembly for Peace in Vietnam in 1967. He served on the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee for over twenty years and acted as a McGovern delegate on behalf of Northern California Labor at the Democratic National Convention in 1972.

Jim advocated for ``guaranteed employment rights, wages, and benefits which match the cost of living to enable workers to be a force and active contributors in the communities.'' His worldview that the treatment of workers is critical to the wellbeing of the community remains as relevant now as it was in Jim's time. I am proud to have been Jim's friend, and thankful for the many ways in which Jim advocated for workers in California and throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, this Chamber must act to protect DREAMers now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end the DACA program.

DACA recipients are rigorously vetted. They are high-contributing young people who were brought to this country as children. They are cherished members of communities across the country, and they are as American as any of us in all but their paperwork.

President Trump's decision to end the program means that these inspiring young people stand to lose their futures. Soon they will be forced out of work and school, faced with the specter of deportation to nations many of them have no memory of. The President has created a moral emergency for our country.

This House must allow a vote on a clean Dream Act. It is a bipartisan bill that gives these young people a real opportunity to get right with the law and earn a path to legal permanent residence.

We all know that if this bill were put on the floor, it would pass. The bill deserves a vote. There is no doubt about the public support.

Recent polls from CNN and ABC show that 82 to 86 percent of the American public supports Dream Act-type legislation; 82 to 86 percent. There is almost no issue we work on that has that much support from the American public.

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Jimmy Panetta, I rise today to acknowledge Housing Choices Coalition for persons with Developmental Disabilities (Housing Choices). This organization was founded in 1997 with the goal of creating quality, affordable housing opportunities for people with developmental disabilities in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties.

Because of the lack of affordable and inclusive housing choices for people with developmental disabilities, Housing Choices was launched with the mission of enhancing the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities. Their hope was to relieve the segregation sometimes experienced by adults in restrictive residential facilities.

Housing Choices partnership model of permanent supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities seeks to work with local jurisdictions and housing developers to secure long-term commitments of rental units in new affordable housing properties for people with developmental disabilities. Residents are then assisted in maintaining their housing with an onsite Resident Coordinator. This housing model promotes integration of people with developmental disabilities in typical affordable housing communities.

Since 2002, Housing Choices has provided housing advice to 3,000 people with developmental disabilities. They further support housing stability for residents by providing on-site resident support services for hundreds of people. Housing Choices' approach has helped over 1,000 people with developmental disabilities annually navigate entry points into the community's supply of affordable rental housing properties.

Housing Choices helps residents with developmental disabilities understand and comply with lease terms and property rules to prevent evictions. They accomplish this by helping to resolve problems with neighbors, roommates, and property managers. Housing Choices sponsors regular workshops and social events for residents. This helps foster leadership among tenants By fostering understanding and respect they also help create supportive communities of friends and neighbors to further integrate residents into their community.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring HCC for twenty years of extraordinary leadership and advocacy in the community of San Jose and for persons with disabilities globally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697. Gang members and serious criminals should not be granted admission to the United States. That is not a controversial position. I think almost every Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, agrees with that. It is our highest priority to protect the safety of the American people. That is a duty I think we all take seriously, but this bill does something other than that.

The title of the bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, and, as we have seen in the past, there are times when the name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual proposed language of the statute, and that is true in this case.

First, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gang as ``an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more'' of a wide range of offenses. This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed.

These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member--for example, one of the offenses relates to the harboring of undocumented immigrants. This statute includes people who give shelter to, transport, or provide other kinds of aid to undocumented immigrants. That means that,

under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang.

This isn't just theoretical. During the 1980s, members of the faith community were repeatedly criminally prosecuted for providing transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one case, the FBI even infiltrated a Bible study group to learn about the group's plan to support undocumented immigrants. Under this bill, DHS would have expanded authority to go after all such groups as criminal gangs. In one fell swoop, it could turn nuns into gang members.

The bill also refers to felony drug offense, which would include the repeated possession of marijuana. In California, my State, along with several other States, voters decided to decriminalize marijuana--first, for medical uses, then later for broader uses. Under this bill, a group that regularly gets together to use marijuana that is legal under State law would still be committing a felony under Federal law and would be a criminal gang. That could include groups of people who are using marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat epilepsy or cancer who are taking marijuana consistent with State law.

Second, the bill authorizes DHS to deny admission or to deport any immigrant, including one who has no criminal history or gang affiliation whatsoever, so long as DHS merely believes the person is associated with such a group.

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill expressly authorize DHS officers and immigration judges to deport an immigrant on nothing more than a reason to believe that the individual has been a member of a gang or has participated in the activities of a gang as defined under these rather broad provisions. There is no need for conviction or even an arrest. All DHS needs is a belief that the individual has assisted any group of five or more people that DHS believes has committed one of these long list of offenses.

This belief could be as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, or the individuals in their family. This is not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Chairman Goodlatte had a self-actualizing amendment when the rule was adopted to change the evidentiary standard. I think it recognizes the problem with the bill.

The amendment really doesn't cure the problem with the breadth of the criminal gang definition, and it doesn't change the standard that applies to people seeking admission to the country, including those who are seeking to reunite with U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and children.

Just this week, I met with actual police officers who asked me to do what I could to defeat this unwise bill. They know, because they are out on the front lines, that gangs are a real problem, and they told me that bills like this, which could turn religious individuals, nuns, cancer victims into targets, is just going to get in their way as police officers.

If we want to keep America safe and admit immigrants who do not have a felony record, I would suggest that we consider the bipartisan Dream Act, H.R. 3440. This bill would provide a path to legal permanent residence for 800,000 young people who were raised in America, who consider this to be their home, who represent the very best of our country.

Instead of debating whether we should allow ICE officers to target religious workers, we should focus on what really makes this country great.

I would like to note that there has been much discussion about the drafting of this bill, and at the Rules Committee just last night, Republicans defended the bill by asserting that the broad provisions would not be abused by ICE officers. Even if they could target the nuns, they wouldn't do that. Even if they could target the cancer victims or the teenagers smoking marijuana after school as gang members, they wouldn't do that.

Now, I am not suggesting that the teenagers smoking marijuana after school is a good thing. But it is not MS-13. And that is what we are trying to make a distinction here between, a gang abatement bill and garden-variety activity that we may not like.

One really very good and very thoughtful Member on the other side of the aisle suggested that, if there is a problem with the bill, we will just come back and fix it. Here is why that is a problem: We know that when we draft something in a poor manner, it often goes on to be enforced and we never get around to fixing it.

I will give an example. We passed years ago, and I objected at the time--Henry Hyde was chairman of the committee--a provision that barred people from gaining status if they provided material support to terrorists.

Well, that sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean?

It turns out that material support--which was never qualified to include support given under duress or given in the ordinary course of a commercial activity--has now been used to bar people who are not terrorists, who didn't give material support.

I will give you an example. A group of women called the Tortilla Terrorists are women who were threatened with their lives and made tortillas because they were threatened with death by guerrilla actors. Now, they were denied asylum because of the tortillas, hence the name the Tortilla Terrorists.

I think most of us would agree that is not terrorism. Yet, we drafted the bill in such a way that the Department felt that they had to enforce it in that way, and we have never gone back to it.

So to think that somehow if we write a law poorly, it is going to be fixed in the administration, that is just wrong. We should step back from this. We should work together. This was just introduced last week.

Now, I know the SAFE Act had hearings years ago, but I think we would be better off if we sat down together, if we reasoned together, if we worked through the defects in this draft, and came up with a bill that really targeted MS-13 members, something that we could all support and that well-served our country.

I will just say that Sister Simone Campbell, one of the leading nuns in America, explained her opposition to this bill. She said:

The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so

sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter,

transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could

be found liable of criminal activity. This statute has been

used against religious workers in the past, and the bill

tries to make it a weapon for the future.

Let's listen to the nuns like we did in school, and step back, redraft this bill, and oppose this poorly crafted measure today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this bill was indeed part of the Davis-Oliver Act which did go through the Judiciary Committee. But that bill was over 200 pages long. It had many problems. It was impossible to address all the problems. We would be there for a month if we had gone through line by line. It was not a good process. If it had been perfect, I would note that Chairman Goodlatte would not have had to have his amendment to remove the reason-to-believe standard that was in the bill that was part of the Davis-Oliver Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an analysis entitled: ``Harboring: Overview of the Law,'' prepared by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

[From the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.]

Harboring: Overview of the Law

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits

individuals from concealing, shielding, or harboring

unauthorized individuals who come into and remain in the

United States. Under the law it is a criminal offense

punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who:

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien

has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in

violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from

detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from

detection, such alien in any place, including any building or

any means of transportation. INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8

U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the ``harboring

provision'' or ``Section 1324 (a)''].

The Harboring Prohibition Applies to Everyone

The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those

individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented

immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented

immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by

the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly

harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States

v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v.

Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 538

U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74

(2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d

1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d

1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063

(1978).

What Are the Elements of Harboring?

To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the

government must prove the following in most jurisdictions

``(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in

violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored,

or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the

defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien

entered or remained in the United States in violation of the

law, and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially

facilitate the alien remaining in the United States

illegally.'' Shum, 496 F.3d at 391-392 (quoting United States

v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F 3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert

denied, 546 U.S. 1097 (2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Seventh Circuit has rejected the fourth element asserting

that the phrase ``conduct tending substantially to

facilitate'' is a judicial addition to the statute that is

unnecessary for a conviction because the statute requires no

specific degree of assistance. United States v. Xiang Hui Ye,

588 F.3d 411, 415-416 (7th Cir. 2009).

What Actions Constitute Harboring?

Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish

the ``harboring'' of undocumented individuals, it never

defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes

``harboring'' has been left to the courts. As shown below,

the federal courts have not settled on one uniform

definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have

adopted their own definition of ``harboring.''

Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an

immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally and that prevents

the authorities from detecting the individual's unlawful

presence (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)

Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing

shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false

documentation, or warnings about impending investigations

that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in

the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit)

Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an

immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally (U.S. Courts of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors,

and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known

undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to

stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him.

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)

Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented

individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)

Explanation of Harboring Through Case Law

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

In the influential case, United States v. Lopez, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went through the

legislative history of the harboring provision and stated

that the term harbor ``was intended to encompass conduct

tending substantially to facilitate an alien's `remaining in

the United States illegally,' provided that the person

charged has knowledge of the immigrant's unlawful status.''

521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995

(1975).

In this case, Mr. Lopez owned at least six homes in Nassau

County, New York, where he operated safe havens for

undocumented individuals. Mr. Lopez knew that the people

staying in his homes were undocumented. Each person paid Mr.

Lopez $15 per week to live in his houses. In many cases,

people received the address for a particular house before

they left their home countries, and, upon crossing the border

illegally, they proceeded directly to the house. Mr. Lopez

also helped these individuals obtain jobs by completing work

applications and transporting them to and from work. He

arranged sham marriages for many so that they could appear to

be in the U.S. in lawful status. With a warrant, immigration

authorities searched six of Lopez's homes and found twenty-

seven undocumented individuals. He was charged with harboring

illegal immigrants.

Mr. Lopez argued that the mere providing of shelter to

undocumented immigrants does not constitute harboring. Id. at

439. He argued that to constitute harboring the conduct must

be part of the process of smuggling immigrants into the U.S.

or facilitating the immigrants' illegal entry into the U.S.

Id. The circuit court noted that he essentially argued that

to constitute harboring the sheltering would have to be

provided either clandestinely or for the purposes of

sheltering the immigrants from the authorities. Id.

The Second Circuit rejected these arguments. It held that

the statute criminalizes conduct that tends substantially to

facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States

illegally. Id. at 441. The circuit court found that Mr.

Lopez's conduct did just that. It pointed out that Mr. Lopez

had a large number of undocumented immigrants living at his

houses; they obtained the addresses and, upon entering the

U.S., proceeded to those houses; Mr. Lopez provided

transportation for them to and from work; and, he helped

arrange sham marriages. Id. The Second Circuit did not

require that Mr. Lopez provide the shelter clandestinely nor

that he shield the illegal immigrants from detection by

immigration authorities Id.

The case of United States v. Kim also is instructive on the

meaning of harboring. 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cu 1999). It states

that harboring within the meaning of Section 1324(a)

``encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an

alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent

government authorities from detecting [the immigrant's]

unlawful presence.'' Id. at 574. In this case, Mr. Myung Ho

Kim owned and operated a garment-manufacturing business

called ``Sewing Masters'' in New York City. He employed a

number of undocumented workers, including Nancy Fanfar.

During the course of her employment, Mr. Kim instructed Ms.

Fanfar to bring in new papers with a different name that

would indicate that she had work authorization. He instructed

Ms. Fanfar to change her name and remain in his employ a

second time, even while he was being investigated by

immigration authorities.

According to the circuit court, Mr. Kim's actions

constituted harboring, for they were designed to help Ms.

Fanfar remain in his employ and to prevent her continued

presence from being detected by the authorities. Thus, his

conduct substantially facilitated her ability to remain in

the U.S. illegally in prohibition of the harboring provision.

Id. at 574-575.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit also has considered what conduct

constitutes ``shielding,'' ``harboring,'' and ``concealing''

within the meaning of Section 1324(a). Like the Second

Circuit, it determined that these terms encompass conduct

``tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in

the U.S. illegally'' and [that] prevent[s] government

authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence.

``U.S. v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008); see also

Delno-Mocci v. Connolly Props, 672 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir.

2012), U.S. v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir.

2009); U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1003 (3d Cir. 2008).

In United States v. Ozcelik, the defendant knew that the

individual remained in the U.S. illegally and advised him to

``lay low'' and ``stay away'' from the address he had on file

with the government. 527 F.3d at 100. However, Mr. Ozcelik

did not actively attempt to intervene or delay an impending

immigration investigation and the Third Circuit held that

advising an individual without legal status to stay out of

trouble and to keep a low profile does not tend substantially

to facilitate their remaining in the country. Id. at 100-01.

The circuit court reasserted that shielding or harboring a

person without status ordinarily includes affirmative conduct

such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about

how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about

impending investigations that facilitates a person's

continuing illegal presence in the United States. See Id. at

99.

In United States v. Silveus, the Third Circuit held that

cohabitation, along with reasonable control of premises

during an immigration agent's inquiry regarding the

whereabouts of the suspected undocumented individual, does

not constitute harboring without sufficient evidence that a

defendant's conduct substantially facilitated the

individual's remaining in the U.S. illegally and prevented

authorities from detecting his/her unlawful presence. 542

F.3d at 1002-04. In this case, the agent never saw the

suspected undocumented individual, but only heard the

apartment door slam, heard some bushes break, and as he

approached, saw the defendant shut her front door. Id. at

1002. The defendant spoke to the agent through her window and

when asked if anybody had run out of her apartment, she said

``I don't know.'' Id. at 1003. The circuit court determined

that the act of shutting a door as an agent rounded the

corner and her subsequent reply to the agent's question did

not establish ``harboring'' under Section 1324(a) because it

only led to speculation as to the suspect's presence. Id. at

1004.

In United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, the Third Circuit

reaffirmed that shielding an undocumented person includes

affirmative conduct (such as providing shelter,

transportation, direction about how to obtain false

documents, or warnings about impending investigations) that

facilitates the person's continuing illegal presence in the

U.S. 572 F.3d at 122. The circuit court held that the

defendant's actions (taking undocumented people from the U.S.

to the Dominican Republic in his private plane) were

undertaken for the purpose of removing them from the U.S.,

not helping them remain in the U.S. Id. It noted that the

goal of Section 1324 is to prevent undocumented individuals

from entering or remaining illegally in the U.S. by punishing

those that shield or harbor. Id. It asserted that punishing a

defendant for helping individuals without legal status leave

the U.S. would be contrary to that goal. Id.

More recently, the Third Circuit reiterated that

``harboring'' requires some act that obstructs the

government's ability to discover the undocumented person and

that it is highly unlikely that landlords renting apartments

to people lacking lawful status could, without more, satisfy

the court's definition of harboring. Delrio-Mocci, 672 F.3d

at 246 (citing Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223

(3d Cir 2010)). The circuit court reiterated that ``[r]enting

an apartment in the normal course of business is not in and

of itself conduct that prevents the government from detecting

an alien's presence.'' Id.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit's definition of harboring is broader than

the Second and Third Circuits. It rejects the notion that to

be convicted of harboring a defendant's conduct must be part

of a smuggling operation or involve actions that hide

immigrants from law enforcement authorities. See De Jesus-

Batres, 410 F.3d at 162 (specific intent is not an element of

the offense of harboring). An early Fifth Circuit decision,

U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977), remains

informative.

In Cantu, immigration agents visited the restaurant owned

by Mr. Cantu because they received information that he was

employing undocumented workers. The agents wanted to question

the employees. Mr. Cantu refused admission to his restaurant

until they could provide a warrant.

While the immigration authorities waited outside for the

warrant, Mr. Cantu made arrangements with at least two of his

patrons to drive some of his undocumented employees into

town. Mr. Cantu also arranged for his employees to sit in the

restaurant and then leave the restaurant like customers. As

the employees left the restaurant, the immigration agents

approached them and questioned them about their immigration

status. The agents determined their illegal status and

arrested them.

Mr. Cantu argued that, because he did not instruct his

employees to ``hide,'' and because the employees left the

restaurant in full view of the officers, he could not be

charged with shielding immigrants from detection. He also

argued that his actions were not connected to any smuggling

activity. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Second Circuit's

Lopez decision, rejected these arguments, and determined that

Mr. Cantu's actions--instructing the employees to act like

customers so they could evade arrest--tended to facilitate

the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally. Id. at 1180.

In another Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Varkonyi,

645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981), the court cited to Lopez to

assert that the harboring statute prohibits ``any conduct

which tends to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining

in the U.S. illegally.'' Id. at 459. Mr. Varkonyi provided a

group of undocumented immigrants with steady employment at

his scrap metal yard six days a week as well as lodging at

his warehouse. On previous occasions, he had instructed and

aided the men in avoiding detection and apprehension. On the

day of their detention, Mr. Varkonyi interfered with Customs

and Border Protection agents' actions by forcibly denying

them entry to his property through physical force.

Here, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct

went well beyond mere employment and thus constituted

harboring. Id. at 459. In this case, the court pointed out

that Mr. Varkonyi knew of the immigrants' undocumented

status, he had instructed the immigrants on avoiding

detection on a prior occasion; he was providing the

immigrants with employment and lodging, he interfered with

immigration agents to protect the immigrants from

apprehension; and he was partly responsible for the escape of

one of the immigrants from custody. Id. Given these facts,

the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct, both

before and after the detention of the immigrants, was

calculated to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S.

unlawfully. Id. at 460.

In 2007, the Fifth Circuit ruled in another employment

harboring case that ``substantially facilitate'' means to

make an individual's illegal presence in the United States

substantially ``easier or less difficult.'' United States v.

Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and

quotation marks omitted). The court noted that Section

1324(a) was enacted to deter employers from hiring

unauthorized individuals and it refused to adopt a narrow

definition of ``substantially facilitate'' that undermines

Congress's purpose. Id.

In this case, Mr. Shum was vice-president of an office-

cleaning company and he employed janitors without legal

status. According to witnesses, he provided false

identifications to the workers to facilitate background

checks so that the workers could clean government office

buildings.

In this legal analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., it does point out that religious persons have been prosecuted and convicted for providing sanctuary. Opinions may differ on whether that is a good idea or bad idea, but to say that that is an MS-13 activity, I think we would all agree that is just crazy. That is what this bill would do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a freshman Member of the House whom we are so fortunate to have. Just last year, as the chief of police, she was on the front line in the fight against gangs.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of closing comments on this bill.

I think it is a given that every Member of this body wants to do something about gangs. I have gangs in my district. I think I heard Mr. King speak so passionately about the problem in his district. It is a pervasive problem.

The concern is that this bill goes far beyond targeting those gangs. That is why we, with great reluctance, have to say we can't do this. We can't do this.

If we wanted to target just the gangs, we wouldn't have included language that would allow charging people who are not gang members as gang members. We wouldn't have included provisions that the victims of gangs would be denied asylum. Section 2(f) of the bill denies individuals who are suspected of alleged gang membership the opportunity to apply for asylum.

Here is the problem. In certain parts of Central America, you have rampant gang activity. Women and girls are terribly abused. They are beaten, turned into sex slaves, tattooed, and they escape. If that young girl who has been the victim of that violence from gangs comes with the tattoos, the brand that that gang put on her, and if she, as a consequence, is reasonably suspected of being a member of the gang, she can't get asylum. That is not what we want in the fight against MS-13.

The bill is not drafted adequately.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

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

It has been mentioned that there are terrible activities being undertaken by gang members. I don't think there is any dispute in this body about that. Our obligation is to craft bills that will allow for remedies for that problem in a specific, targeted, and effective way. I think this bill falls far short in that regard.

We had mentioned earlier the great concern that has been expressed to us by religious people across the United States about the provisions relative to harboring. Five nuns on a religious worker visa who help provide sanctuary for an undocumented person is a gang under this bill. They are not MS-13.

We could craft a measure that avoids that outcome while still going after MS-13. We didn't do that. For one thing, we didn't actually sit down, both sides of the aisle, to work together, to reason together, to make that happen.

I would like to note that the smuggling issue is a big problem. We have unanimous agreement on the smuggling issue. We have worked together, actually, with the Wilberforce Act and other acts in a bipartisan way to deal with that. But we didn't bifurcate smuggling from harboring in this bill. That is why the nuns and the Catholic bishops have contacted us asking us not to support this bill.

I would like to note, just finally, that the first obligation that we have is to keep America safe. We fail to do that if we craft language that really is just part of a broad deportation agenda under the guise of an antigang bill. There is great concern that is what has happened here.

One of the elements that is referenced as a predicate for gang activity--the five people who are working together--is that documents are false. A lot of people are highly agitated when undocumented people have false documents. Opinions differ. Almost every undocumented person in the United States who works has a fake ID; otherwise, they can't get a job.

You can agree with that, you can think it is terrible, you can think it is maybe not so terrible. I think most of us would agree it is not MS-13. Why would we craft this in such a way to treat that activity as an MS-13 activity and to blow up all the procedures we have in place to make sure that justice is done?

I hope that Members will vote against this bill. Despite the name, it goes far beyond attacking gangs. It would drift into allowing for the deportation of religious people and others who have done nothing related to gang activity.

I hope that, if this bill is defeated, we can sit down, as we often have on various items and worked collaboratively on patent reform and other issues, and do the same on this. I hope, if this bill is defeated, we will take the opportunity to do that.

I, for one, pledge my best efforts to come up with a measure that is targeted and effective. This bill, unfortunately, is not.

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, but, as we have seen in the past, the name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual text of the bill, and that is true in this case, regrettably.

As has been mentioned, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gangs so broadly as to sweep in many individuals that no one would think of as a gang member.

The bill, for example, would classify any group of five that engages in harboring as a criminal gang. Now, harboring includes giving shelter to, or transporting, or providing other kinds of aid to undocumented immigrants. This means, as has been mentioned, that a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be defined as a criminal gang. And any immigrant clergy or congregationalist that assists that organization would be deportable if they are a legal permanent resident, or on a religious worker visa, or the like.

Now, this isn't just a hypothetical. During the 1980s, members of the religious communities were repeatedly prosecuted for providing transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one fell swoop, this bill could turn nuns into gang members. And that is why I include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, the letter that Mr. Hastings referenced from the nuns objecting to this piece of legislation for those reasons.

Network Advocates for

Catholic Social Justice.

Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Exactly one

week ago, President Trump announced the termination of the

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program,

putting at risk the lives and well-being of undocumented

immigrant youth who are valued members of our communities.

DACA has protected nearly 800,000 immigrant youth from

deportation and allowed them to work, attend school, and be

publicly participating members of our communities.

The President's action threatens every DACA recipient and

causes great anxiety. This anxiety exists not just with the

DACA youth but also in the broader community. We all are

concerned about their future and fear their deportation to a

country they neither know nor call home. Today, rather than

taking up President Trump's challenge to ``fix'' DACA, the

House Judiciary Committee is choosing instead to stir up

politics of fear in our communities by proceeding with H.R.

3697 in an effort to criminalize the undocumented status of

some members of our communities. Network Lobby for Catholic

Social Justice strongly urges Members of the House to vote NO

on H.R. 3697.

The faith community has vigorously opposed any bill that

would promote the Trump Administration's stated goal of

engaging in ``mass deportation'' of immigrants. The Trump

agenda seeks to allow for the detention and removal of large

numbers of immigrants without any criminal records. H.R. 3697

is just the latest bill targeted to achieve this goal. The

bill purports to make communities safer by targeting the

deportation of people involved in criminal activity in gangs.

However, it is poorly drafted and overboard with sweeping

generalizations. It even allows for the removal of

individuals based on the mere subjective belief of an

association to criminal activity. There is no requirement of

a criminal conviction for deportation. This violates any

principle of fairness as well as the Constitution's guarantee

of due process.

As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor and

welcome the stranger. As such, we stand in solidarity with

all people including our immigrant sisters and brothers.

Catholic Sisters have a long history of work with immigrant

communities and a commitment to their safety and security.

Under this bill, religious workers who are engaged in

immigrant ministry could be subject to prosecution. The

bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so sweeping

that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation or

support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of

criminal activity. The federal courts have found that

``harboring'' includes offering a known undocumented

individual a place to stay. This statute has been used

against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to

make it a weapon for the future.

It is time for Congress to stop playing games with the

lives of our immigrant sisters and brothers. The real problem

Congress should be working on today is an effort to pass the

bipartisan Dream Act of 2017 championed by Congresswoman Ros-

Lehtinen (R-FL) and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard (D-CA). That

bill has broad support from the faith community and is a

substantive improvement to our fractured immigration system.

We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3697. It is poorly drafted

legislation that would increase the disruption in our

communities! Instead, work for the common good and take up

H.R. 3440 and pass the bipartisan Dream Act. Faith and

patriotism demand it.

Sincerely,

Sister Simone Campbell, SSS,

Executive Director,

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also refers to felony drug offenses. That includes, actually, use of drugs repeatedly that is lawful in the State where it has been approved, but still unlawful under Federal law.

That means, for example, in California, the voters of California first approved medical marijuana, and then marijuana more broadly. Groups of cancer patients take marijuana, and also epilepsy sufferers, to assist in their medical condition. Under this bill, those individuals who are repeatedly using marijuana in groups of five or above would be a criminal gang.

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill authorize DHS officers and immigration judges to deport any immigrant, including lawful permanent residents of the United States, without requiring a conviction or even an arrest.

Instead, the DHS would rely on evidence as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, the individual in their family, the belief of the officer. This is not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional.

Now, Chairman Goodlatte had an amendment that apparently recognized this fact, but it only fixes one part of the problem. His amendment, which would be effectuated through adoption of the rule, eliminates the extremely low reason-to-believe standard with respect to deportation, which applies, of course, to permanent residents and other immigrants in the United States.

But even with this amendment, the bill authorizes the broad deportation of noncriminals, including religious workers, and, as I say, users of medical marijuana. And here is the other kicker: it could deny admission, without any review, to anyone who is suspected of doing a thing outlined in the bill, for example, using marijuana or a religious worker harboring someone who is undocumented.

How would that work? If you are a legal permanent resident of the United States and you go visit your family in another country, when you try to come back in, you are stopped, and you are denied readmission, even if you have been here 10, 20, 30 years, and there is no appeal. You are out of luck.

That is not fighting MS-13. That is not about gang reduction. That is really an overreach on this bill that none of us should agree with.

There is another way this would work, which is an adjustment of status. Let's give this example: your son marries a woman from another country who is here on a legal visa, but she is part of a church that is providing sanctuary for a DREAMer. She is, therefore, suspected as being part of this criminal gang, a group of five or more, that is harboring this undocumented person.

When your son goes to petition for his now-wife to become a legal permanent resident, she is going to be denied, and it is a reasonable- belief standard, not the higher standard that Mr. Goodlatte has tried to impose. There is no hearing. There is no appeal on that. Your daughter-in-law, and probably your son, are going to have to leave the country, and your grandchildren raised in another country.

This is really not the American way. It is unproductive. It doesn't keep us any safer, and it doesn't do anything about MS-13.

I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on this rule and that we could, instead, sit down together, reason together, come up with a plan that actually does something about gang violence.

I am sure that, if we work together, we could come up with a bill that meets the requirements of the Constitution; that is targeted towards gang members, not nuns; and that actually makes our country safer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for allowing my comments on this. I think the bill is mistitled, and it would be a mistake to allow it to proceed without further changes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Adam, a student at the University of California Santa Cruz majoring in mathematics.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members don't know what a previous question motion is, and that is not really a surprise, because it is usually used to set up some issues, and it is a party-line vote. This is different.

This is different because this would allow amendments to be offered to these appropriations bills. Now, the amendment process in appropriations is one of the few times that Members of Congress have an opportunity to offer an amendment. And it is not just Democrats. It is Republicans, too.

I recall very well--I am a member, I am a co-chair of the Fourth Amendment Caucus. It is Congressman Ted Poe and myself. And what members of the Fourth Amendment Caucus did was we put together an amendment that actually reformed section 702 of the PATRIOT Act. What it said was you can't query the database accumulated under section 702 without a warrant. It is pretty obvious the Fourth Amendment protects Americans. That passed by a huge bipartisan vote twice. We don't get to offer that amendment this time because it is not an open rule.

So I am just asking that we treat this previous question vote as very different than the usual garden variety previous question vote, because this is different. This isn't about idealogy. This isn't about 30- second adds and all that nonsense that we both do. No. This is about having the opportunity--Republicans and Democrats, Members of Congress--to offer an amendment in important areas, especially the Fourth Amendment.

So please vote ``yes'' on the previous question this time, and let's have open rules. Let's have democracy in America.

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks the 2-year anniversary of the death of Kate Steinle, which was a tragedy for her family and for our entire community. My colleague from California has mentioned the murder of Officers Davis and Oliver, something that shook our northern California community.

These things are terrible, and I think we can agree that every Member of this House objects to, mourns, and is tremendously distressed and opposed to these criminal acts. But H.R. 3004 is not the solution to prevent such tragedies.

The bill expands criminal sentences for illegal reentry offenses, but, as has been mentioned by the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the person charged in connection with Kate's death--I believe he is, in fact, the murderer--spent over 16 years in Federal prison. He was repeatedly deported. It didn't prevent his crime.

I think it is important to recall that we are not here writing bumper stickers. We are here writing laws. So we need to examine what is the current law and what is the proposal to change the current law.

The discussion I have heard seems to assume that there are no harsh penalties in law for people who reenter without inspection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Right now, there is a felony provision for attempts to reenter. There are criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens. For example, if you are removed subsequent to a conviction for a commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against a person, or both, or a felony, there is a 10- year sentence. If you are removed subsequent to commission of an aggravated felony, it is a 20-year sentence, and on and on.

What does the bill do? It, for example, changes the 20-year sentence to a 25-year sentence. Well, you can argue whether that is wise or unwise. I personally think whether it is 20 or 25 is not going to be the major difference for a heinous criminal.

It also expands the definition of the misdemeanors that must be committed to entail these tremendous penalties. Right now, I mentioned it is penalties involving violence or drugs. This would just be garden- variety misdemeanors. If you were driving without a license, if you were loitering, that would count for the 10 years in Federal prison.

I don't think that those provisions are likely to make a material difference in the kinds of crimes that we all abhor, but there is something else that is in this bill that I think needs to be attended to. The bill's sponsor claims this targets immigrants with criminal convictions, but the reality is the bill mostly affects other people.

The bill, for the first time, would make it a criminal offense for an individual who was previously denied admission or ordered removed to seek to reenter the country legally, even if the individual has no criminal history, no history of repeated reentries. The bill does this by adding a definition to the term ``crosses the border'' that includes those who enter the country in ``official restraint.''

This small change means it would be a felony for a person who has been previously denied admission or previously removed to present themselves at a port of entry to request asylum, parole, admission, or another form of entry consistent with immigration laws. This is a drastic departure from current law.

Under current law, an individual can be prosecuted for illegal entry if they are trying to evade or intend to evade detection. If they are trying to sneak in, they get caught, we charge them with a crime. An individual who comes to a port of entry and voluntarily presents herself to an immigration officer to ask permission to enter the country legally has not committed a crime. This bill would change that.

Think about that for a minute. The bill makes it a crime to come to a port of entry not with the intent to enter the U.S. illegally, but to ask for a form of entry provided by the immigration laws.

In other words, this bill makes it a crime for someone to try to reenter legally.

If you are a victim of human trafficking and come to a port of entry to seek protection and, ultimately, a T visa, which the law allows, you would commit a crime under this bill. If your U.S. citizen relative is critically injured and you show up at the port to ask for humanitarian parole so you can donate blood or an organ to your U.S. citizen relative, you have committed a crime. In each of these cases, you can be prosecuted and put in jail for up to 2 years, even if you ultimately win your immigration case.

I also want to make a point about some of the other types of people this bill would affect.

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at least half of all the individuals convicted of illegal entry under the current statute, which is the most common Federal prosecution in law today, were coming to reunite with their family in the United States. Half of them had at least one child living in the U.S. Two-thirds of the offenders had other family members--a spouse or others--they were trying to get back to.

So, in addition to the people who are trying to enter legally, this bill massively increases penalties on people who are trying to get back to their families, many of whom are U.S. citizens.

The desperation of these broken families is a direct result of our failed immigration policy. Hundreds of thousands of immigrant parents have been deported over the years, leaving their U.S. citizen children as orphans in the United States. These parents--and I understand it-- are trying to get back to their kids.

We may think that is a good thing or a bad thing, but we don't think that it is a crime to love your child and want to get back to that child.

The desperation that these families feel is a direct result of our inability to create a top-to-bottom reform of our immigration laws that allows families to be united, allows the economy to meet its needs, allows the crops to be picked legally. We have created this problem by failing to enforce our laws.

This bill doesn't solve the crime problem that we all care about. It creates new problems. It is not the answer to the terrible offenses that are at the name of it. In fact, those terrible crimes seem to me to be merely an excuse to expand deportation for the many, many people whose only offense is wanting to be near their families.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't about fixing our immigration system. In fact, it makes the system more dysfunctional and puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how to police themselves and protect their people. It says: We here in D.C. know better than you do, local police, across the United States.

Now, 600 or more local governments engaged in what they call community trust policies. These policies promote, among other things, allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences. Years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach best ensures these communities' safety.

I think that is why we have received communications from the National Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to this bill, from the Law Enforcement Task Force--that is 36 sheriffs and chiefs across the country--in opposition to this bill, from the Major County Sheriffs of America in opposition to this bill, from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties.

ICE is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose Police Department has told me, San Jose police are not enforcing the securities laws, they are not enforcing the Federal tax laws, and they are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. They are doing their job to protect their community against crime.

Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding from jurisdictions.

Now, what would that funding be?

It is grants against violent gangs. It is grants for the Anti-Heroin Task Force and the Anti-Methamphetamine Program, grants on port security to

prevent terrorists from getting into the United States, and grants for the BioWatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting biohazards and killing us all.

That is not smart to take those programs away from local governments that are working with us to help keep America safe.

Now, I always think, as I said earlier, we are not doing bumper stickers here. We are doing laws. It is important to take a look at the details of what is in this proposed bill. In addition to banning collaborative grants with localities, the remedies it has made available is if a community has a community trust policy, the Department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants--legal warrants--that are issued by that jurisdiction.

That is astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth Amendment prevents them from holding people whose sentences have been served. In fact, there are a number of Federal courts that have made that determination, you can't hold somebody on a civil detainer request without violating the Fourth Amendment.

There is a remedy to that: get a warrant like anybody else. The Fourth Amendment means something, and there is a remedy. Go get a warrant. I don't know why our Federal Government feels that they can upend constitutional law for their own convenience.

Now, there is a provision in this bill that I find shocking. What it says is that if local governments violate the law--violate a court order--that they cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, that they are immunized, the Federal Government is going to pay, go ahead and violate the law. I cannot remember a time when we had a bill before us that said to States and localities: go ahead, violate the law because we are going to indemnify you for the violation.

That is not the way our Federal system should work, and it is not the way those of us who believe in our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States think that things ought to work.

Now, finally, it creates something that I think is truly astonishing: a private cause of action against a State or locality if because the detainer cannot be honored because of the Federal Court cases and a person is released and, for any reason, commits a crime that it is the locality that bears the cost, not the criminal. This is a crazy provision.

We should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the National Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the National Association of Counties in opposition to this bill.

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and

Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal

Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any

amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law

enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or

resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an

effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The

House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and

Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program

administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance

Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered

by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly

believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should

cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said,

withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--

which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety

efforts.

Local police departments answer to local civilian

government and it is the local government which enacts

statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement

officers have no more say in these matters than any other

citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be

argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to

pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out

lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the

civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to

penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because

Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with

respect to our nation's immigration laws.

The FOP issued a statement in January of this year

regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary

cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The

President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law

enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the

political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S.

Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the

public safety impact without an automatic suspension from

Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is

no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's

existing policy.

The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress,

which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and

we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce

or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for

local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect

policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find

another way to do so.

On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R.

3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to

find a better way to improve public safety in our

communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior

Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any

further assistance.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reflect back on why localities adopt these community trust policies.

The chairman of the committee mentioned somebody in San Francisco who is suing the city. In a way, that shows the efficacy of the trust policies.

This man, Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno, was a victim of crime. His truck was stolen. He went into the police department to report that his truck was stolen. There was a removal order that was 10 or 20 years old. He has an American citizen child. He is a working person. When he went outside, he was picked up by ICE.

I think what that tells other people who are victims of crime who might have an outstanding removal order is: Don't report the crime. It is one thing if you have lost your truck. It has been stolen.

Not that I am for stealing trucks, but here is a bigger problem.

The cities of Houston and Los Angeles report a dramatic drop-off in reports of sexual violence. Why? Because immigrants are afraid to report; and not just because they might be undocumented, but they might have a sister or a next-door neighbor or a spouse who is undocumented, even if they are a citizen. So what has happened is with these threats come an unwillingness of immigrants to report crime, to be witnesses to crime, to keep our communities safe.

These stories that we have heard of the victims of crime are heartbreaking, but we are not without remedies under current law.

The most important law in our country is the Constitution. The Constitution includes the Fourth Amendment.

The Constitution is the most important law we have. We read it aloud on the first day of our Congress. It includes the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause and warrants. A bunch of courts have made that ruling relative to detainers.

Well, that doesn't leave the Federal Government without remedies. Get a warrant. There is not a jurisdiction in the United States that will not honor a judicial warrant. Don't blame the local police. Look to the Department of Homeland Security for why they have dropped the ball and been unwilling to take the steps that are well within their authority today to make sure if there is someone that they need, they get a warrant and they obtain that person for whatever is the next step in their process.

To somehow suggest that this misguided bill is the answer is a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following additional letters in opposition to H.R. 3003. These are additional letters of opposition that I mentioned earlier on H.R. 3003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, why is this a problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Immigrant Justice

Center,

June 27, 2017.

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

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

This week the House of Representatives will vote on two

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

to reflect a dangerous philosophy of governance. For decades

now, elected officials across the bipartisan divide have

joined together calling for a compassionate and common sense

approach to immigration legislation. These bills move us

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

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

of our communities by forcing local police to abandon

community policing efforts and become a full partner with the

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

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

incarceration of countless immigrants for the mere act of

migration.

The National Immigrant Justice Center calls on elected

officials to reject such nonsensical and harmful legislation.

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

with immigrant communities.

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

community trust in local police and put our communities in danger

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

localities from enacting policies that in any way limit

cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

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

unconstitutional.

The law would strip localities of vital discretion to enact

immigration-enforcement-related laws and policies that are

smart and effective for their communities. Specifically, it

prohibits localities from declining to comply with requests

from ICE to jail individuals under detainer requests even

when doing so will put them in blatant violation of binding

federal court orders. Our communities are safer when

residents feel safe calling for help and assisting police in

investigating and prosecuting cries. By effectively forcing

localities into the business of federal immigration law, this

law will preclude cities and counties from using their

limited local resources to address public safety concerns in

the ways they deem most appropriate and effective.

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

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

principle of the Tenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution.

H.R. 3003 punishes jurisdictions for engaging in smart

community policing.

The law would punish jurisdictions that choose to limit

cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by stripping

federal funding that fulfills vital law enforcement needs,

including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

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

Assistance Grant Program, and any other grant administered by

the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security that are

deemed ``substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism,

national security, immigration, or naturalization.'' In

addition to running further afoul of the Tenth Amendment,

this law cruelly forces jurisdictions to choose between

maintaining critical funds, including

for community policing, or exposing themselves to the

significant legal and financial liability that accompany

compliance with detainer requests under the Fourth Amendment

and the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

and in some cases requiring ICE to ignore criminal warrants

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

compliance with other provisions of the bill.

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

localities to detain immigrants with no regard for the Fourth

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

immunity for resulting constitutional violations.

The law makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by giving

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

reality allowing ICE to ask localities to detain immigrants

longer than they would otherwise be held simply on the basis

of a belief that the individual is removable from the United

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

for resulting constitutional violations. In practice, this

piece of the law essentially requires local actors to violate

the constitution and then gives them immunity for doing so.

It is legislative overreach at its worst.

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

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

the citizenship status of the perpetrator of the crime.

The law provides that an individual or surviving relative

can bring a lawsuit against a state or locality if the

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

from custody pursuant to a trust policy. This provision

allows the worst kind of scapegoating, manipulating

individual tragedies to demonize all immigrants.

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

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

detention for large categories of undocumented individuals

for the duration of deportation proceedings against them.

The law thumbs its nose at the basic due process

protections of our United States Constitution, explicitly

approving of indefinite detention for individuals in

immigration custody regardless of their community ties to the

United States or necessity for detention. Specifically, the

law expands greatly the categories of immigrants who are

denied access to any individualized bond determination

throughout their time in immigration jail. With deaths in

immigration detention occurring with alarming frequency and

rates of representation in detention alarmingly low, these

provisions are nothing but cruel.

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

mere act of migration

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

reentry to punish legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence

in their countries of origin.

The law expands the category of individuals punishable by

section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to include

even those men and women who surrender themselves at the

southern border to seek protection in the United States.

H.R. 3004 senselessly expands sentencing enhancements for

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

prosecutions target migration-related offenses.

The law provides incredibly harsh sentencing enhancements

for individuals seeking to return to the United States after

a previous removal on the basis of prior convictions or

entries. Apart from the cruel and unnecessary use of federal

prison to separate families, this bill will prove exorbitant

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

bill of more than $7 billion to incarcerate migrants for

migration-related offenses over the past decade.

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

their previous deportation orders were unlawful and deprived

them of the opportunity to seek protection. This law entirely

prohibits defendants in illegal reentry cases from

challenging the validity of their prior deportation orders.

This provision is blatantly unconstitutional and in violation

of Supreme Court jurisprudence that protects against

punishing immigrants on the basis of legally defective

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

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

seekers who return to the United States after being

previously denied the opportunity to present their claims for

protection. Given the already anemic protections for asylum

seekers at our southern border, these provisions will

inevitably harm the most vulnerable among us.

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

a vote against community safety. NIJC calls on Members of

Congress to stand on the right of history and oppose these

harmful measures.

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

I am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no debating that our immigration system is in need of reform. The system doesn't meet the needs of our Nation, its businesses, or its families. There are sensible steps we can take to ensure that it works better and that the rules are followed.

But rather than work in a bipartisan and top-to-bottom fashion to fix our broken laws, today we consider a one-sided and enforcement-only approach that is rejected by the majority of Americans.

This bill would drastically expand and, indeed, compel local involvement with Federal immigration enforcement. Even though the majority often professes its fondness for states' rights and local governance, the bill actually prohibits States and cities from policing themselves as they think best, including by having community trust policies that disentangle local policing from Federal immigration enforcement. These are policies that have proven to engender trust in law enforcement and drive down crime.

The bill prohibits jurisdictions from declining immigration detainer requests, even when compliance would violate binding court orders. In fact, a lot of Federal district courts have found that, when it is time to release an inmate because their sentence has been served, it violates the Fourth Amendment to hold that individual upon a mere request by the Federal Government. If you want that person, the answer is simple: Get a warrant. It is the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, the bill also likely violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering States to engage in Federal enforcement.

The bill, as has been mentioned, cuts off critical law enforcement funding, and that is why the Fraternal Order of Police has written its letter in opposition to the bill.

Taken together, the provisions of this bill undermine law enforcement's ability to keep communities safe, hurt victims and witnesses of crimes, and likely violate the U.S. Constitution.

It is no surprise this bill is a priority for the Trump administration. Anti-immigrant sentiment may have become the hallmark of the Trump administration, but it does not represent the values of our Nation, and, indeed, the majority of Americans strongly oppose President Trump's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2017, I missed two votes due to a dental emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 300--Yea, and rollcall No. 301--yea.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. The bill, in fact, does weaken critical screening of potential CBP officers, and our country actually should be working to increase the security relative to CBP. CBP is essential. It is our first line of defense to stop terrorists, to stop drugs, to stop dangerous persons coming in, and we should not weaken our standards.

Now, the overwhelming majority of CBP officers are honest, hardworking public servants. Crime and corruption has, however, been a persistent problem for the agency. Numerous CBP officers have been found to have strong connections to organized crime, including drug cartels. They are in prison now.

In many cases, cartels try and infiltrate the CBP by recruiting people to apply for CBP positions. This results in illicit drug smuggling and other dangerous activities.

In 2015, the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel found that--and this is a quote--``arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other Federal law enforcement agencies.''

In 2016, this same panel observed that ``corrupt CBP law enforcement personnel pose a national security threat.'' And it recommended that the current polygraph test be expanded, not reduced.

Now, this bill allows for an exemption for local law enforcement and former members of the Armed Forces from the polygraph requirement. For example, if a polygraph has been taken in the prior 10 years, I think it is a mistake to think that that will protect us.

In fact, the Inspector General at DHS, John Roth, advises against this bill. He explained that the polygraph changes, including this legislation--and this is a quote--``could put CBP at significant risk.''

He says: ``While it may sound reasonable to say you could waive requirements from former military personnel because they have passed a polygraph, Border Patrol agents work in a different environment that is not as controlled as the military.''

Now, it is important to note that, of the applicants for the CBP, two-thirds fail the polygraph test. That may be a concern, but we ought to be glad that people who are a risk are not actually hired by the

An Afghan veteran who had classified information that he admitted he had taken out of theater.

An Army officer who would meet the criteria who admitted that he had removed classified information from Iraq.

A police officer who admitted that he had smuggled marijuana into detention centers.

It is not too big a burden to ask that applicants have a polygraph test and be clean.

The Sinaloa cartel is recruiting people to apply to become CBP officers. Our protection is to make sure that we completely screen every single applicant so that the cartel is unsuccessful in infiltrating our first line of defense at the U.S. borders.

So, with that, I know that the authors are well-intentioned, but this is a serious mistake for the security of our country, and I urge Members to vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not at all question the intentions of the proponents of this bill. I understand that the entire rationale is to expedite hiring because of the vast number of vacancies. I do, however, question the wisdom of this approach.

I think it is worth noting that, currently, two-thirds of the applicants for CBP fail the polygraph test; and that is important not as a barrier, but because that polygraph test reveals misconduct that makes them ineligible.

Now, the current Department of Homeland Security inspector general, John Roth, has expressed strong reservations about polygraph changes, the waivers, and, specifically, about these bills. He indicates that we need to identify other ways to make hiring more efficient ``without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.'' And, in fact, the DHS OIG is currently auditing the CBP polygraph program, as is the GAO.

If you take a look at the bill, it allows for exemptions of the polygraph to certain categories of people, one of which is law enforcement officers who have undergone a polygraph examination as a condition of employment within the past 10 years. Well, you know, there was actually a Freedom of Information request on who flunked the polygraph tests in the CBP, and what has come out is that people who fall into this exemption admitted conduct that would make them ineligible, including child pornography, smuggling of drugs, theft.

It is fine to say that this would only be used when you knew that there wasn't a problem. The problem with that argument is sometimes you don't find out what the problem is until you subject the applicant to a polygraph or they know that they are about to be subjected to a polygraph, in which case, they own up.

So the Border Patrol is to be honored; they do a great job for us. But we know that the Sinaloa drug cartel is trying to recruit applicants. The last thing we need is for them to succeed, for our sake as well as for our brave men and women in the Border Patrol.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good solution to the dilemma that faces us. We do have a hiring deficit in the Border Patrol, but we cannot give up on the need to fully vet these people.

The independent inspector said that the polygraphs had stopped dozens of applicants who have admitted to participation in human trafficking, defrauding the government, and have links with cartels intent to infiltrate CBP.

There has been, actually, a release from the Freedom of Information Act of people who would be eligible for the exemption who admitted, under the polygraph, to sexual assault, to child pornography, to taking classified information from Afghanistan, to taking classified information from Iraq, a sheriff's employee who engaged in theft, and a police officer who was a smuggler. The Border Patrol cannot afford this.

I think the gentlewoman's amendment actually preserves what we want, and I would highly recommend that we approve it.