    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     ______

                      STRENGTHEN AND FORTIFY ENFORCEMENT
                                   (SAFE) ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 2278

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 13, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-36

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    ---------------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    81-463 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2013
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800; DC area (202)512-1800  Fax:(202)512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC, Washington,DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                       Virginia
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                  Georgia
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     JUDY CHU, California
    TED POE, Texas                       TED DEUTCH, Florida
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             KAREN BASS, California
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
    MARK AMODEI, Nevada                  SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
    RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho                 JOE GARCIA, Florida
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida
    JASON T. SMITH, Missouri

               Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
            Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 JUNE 13, 2013

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of South Carolina, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary     1
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................     3
    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary     4
    The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary....     6

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County, Florence, AZ
      Oral Testimony.................................................    10
      Prepared Statement.............................................    12
    Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government
      Employees
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18
    The Honorable Sam S. Page, Sheriff of Rockingham County,
      Wentworth, North Carolina
      Oral Testimony.................................................    25
      Prepared Statement.............................................    27
    Jamiel Shaw, Sr., Committee to pass Jamiel'S Law, Los Angeles, CA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    32
      Prepared Statement.............................................    34
    The Honorable Randy C. Krantz, Commonwealth's Attorney, Bedford,
      VA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    36
      Prepared Statement.............................................    38
    Sabine A. Durden, mother of Dominic Durden, Moreno Valley, CA
      Oral Testimony.................................................    42
      Prepared Statement.............................................    45
    Karen C. Tumlin, Managing Attorney, National Immigration Law
      Center
      Oral Testimony.................................................    53
      Prepared Statement.............................................    55
    Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro, Director of Civic Engagement and
      Immigration, National Council of La Raza
      Oral Testimony.................................................    65
      Prepared Statement.............................................    67

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee
      on the Judiciary...............................................    85
    Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Committee on
      the Judiciary..................................................   170
                            OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD
          Material Submitted for the Hearing Record but not Reprinted

    H.R. 2278, the ``Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act'' is not
        reprinted in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee
        and can be accessed at:

         http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2278ih/pdf/BILLS-
    113hr2278ih.pdf

                 STRENGTHEN AND FORTIFY ENFORCEMENT (SAFE) ACT

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:44 p.m., in room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Trey Gowdy
    presiding.
        Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas,
    Chabot, Bachus, King, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador,
    Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Smith of Missouri, Conyers, Scott,
    Watt, Lofgren, Johnson, Pierluisi, Gutierrez, Richmond,
    DelBene, and Garcia.
        Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General
    Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief
    Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel;
    Dimple Shah, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry
    Applebaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle
    Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel.
        Mr. Gowdy. Good afternoon. The Judiciary Committee will
    come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
    declare recesses of the Committee at any time. We welcome
    everyone to this afternoon's hearing on H.R. 2278, the
    ``Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act.''*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *The bill, H.R. 2278, the ``Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement
    (SAFE) Act,'' can be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-
    113hr2278ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr2278ih.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement, and
    then the gentleman from Michigan.
        The 19 hijackers involved in the 9/11, 2001, terrorist
    attacks applied for 23 visas and obtained 22. The terrorists
    began the process of obtaining visas almost 2\1/2\ years before
    the attack. More recently, a legal permanent resident and
    naturalized U.S. citizen injured and murdered multiple
    Americans in Boston.
        Abel Arango, a Cuban national, served time in prison for
    armed robbery. He was released from prison in 2004 and was
    supposed to be deported. However, Cuba wouldn't take him back.
    DHS had to release him because of the Supreme Court's decision
    in Zavidas v. Davis. He shot Fort Myers police officer Andrew
    Widman in the face. Officer Widman never even had the
    opportunity to draw his weapon. Husband and father of three
    died at the scene.
        Sixteen-year-old Ashton Cline-McMurray, an American citizen
    who suffered from cerebral palsy, was attacked by 14 gang
    members while walking home from a football game in Suffolk
    County outside of Boston. According to his mother, Sandra
    Hutchinson, they beat him with rungs out of stairs, they beat
    him with a golf club, they stabbed him through his heart, and
    finally through his lungs. He, too, really never had a chance.
    And Ashton's killers pled guilty to lesser charges for
    manslaughter in the second degree murder. One of the
    defendants, Loeun Heng, was recently released back onto the
    streets by the Massachusetts Parole Board. Heng, like thousands
    of other criminal aliens in recent years, initially could not
    be deported because his home country refused to take him back--
    again because of the Supreme Court's decision in Zavidas v.
    Davis. Heng wound up back on the streets living here in the
    United States.
        Recent events like these underscore the need for Congress
    to act, and compel this and future Administrations to provide
    for public safety first and foremost. We must strengthen and
    improve our immigration enforcement system not just at the
    border, but within the interior of the United States.
        The SAFE Act was introduced to remedy this current
    unacceptable state of affairs. The bill, in my judgement, will
    keep us safe in numerous ways. First, it fulfills the intent of
    the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which authorized the
    placement of Department of Homeland Security Visa Security
    Units at highest-risk U.S. consular posts. This was an effort
    to address lapses in the current system, increase scrutiny of
    visa issuance, and prevent terrorists from gaining access to
    the United States.
        Unfortunately, since 2002 neither the State Department nor
    DHS has put a high priority on the establishment of Visa
    Security Units. Just recently, State Department denied DHS'
    request to set up a post in Turkey. Visa Security Units exist
    in only 14 countries. Meanwhile, close to 50 countries have
    been designated as highest risk.
        In addition to making it harder for terrorists to enter,
    the SAFE Act allows U.S. Officials to more easily remove
    terrorists and other national security threats. The bill closes
    loopholes and allows terrorists to be removed from American
    soil without threatening the disclosure of intelligence sources
    and methods. Of note, the bill bars foreign terrorists or
    immigrants who threaten national security from receiving
    immigration benefits such as naturalization and discretionary
    relief from removal. The bill also prohibits immigration
    benefits from being provided to immigrants until a background
    check is successfully passed.
        The SAFE Act also addresses criminal threats. According to
    recent data provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
    nearly 4,000 dangerous immigrant criminals have been released
    in just about every year since 2008 because the Zavidas
    decision requires DHS to release all aliens with final orders
    of removal where their native country refuses to take them
    back. Nearly 1,700 convicted criminals have been released thus
    far this year alone. This is unacceptable and is not consistent
    with the government's preeminent obligation to provide for
    public safety. H.R. 2278 provides the statutory basis for DHS
    to detain, as long as necessary, specified dangerous aliens
    under orders of removal who cannot be removed. This provision
    is based on legislation that former Chairman Lamar Smith
    previously introduced.
        In addition to these provisions, the SAFE Act ensures
    aliens convicted of sexual abuse of children, manslaughter, two
    or more convictions for driving under influence, or failing to
    register as a child sex offender or any kind of sex offender
    are removable. It expands the range of conduct for which an
    alien can be removed pertaining to espionage and exploiting
    sensitive information.
        The bill makes alien members of violent criminal street
    gangs removable. This provision is based on legislation
    introduced previously by the gentleman from Virginia, Randy
    Forbes. The SAFE Act also provides ICE agents with the tools
    they need do their job and the protections needed to keep them
    safe.
        So I look forward to today's hearing. I especially look
    forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses whose
    family members were taken from them because of our current
    system's failure at multiple levels. Public safety and national
    security must be the twin overarching pillars of any
    immigration reform system.
        And with that, I would recognize the gentleman from
    Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
    Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
        We gather here for the tenth hearing on immigration, and I
    don't say that critically, because this subject is important.
    And I join in welcoming all two, four, six, eight witnesses,
    but I particularly single out Ms. Tumlin, attorney Tumlin, and
    the representative from the National Council of La Raza,
    Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro. Welcome.
        We've held legislative hearings on E-Verify, we've had
    hearings on agriculture, the agricultural guest worker bill,
    and today's hearing is an enforcement-only bill. Now, I respect
    the efforts of my colleagues that are putting such emphasis on
    enforcement. But H.R. 2278 is not the right bill for this
    moment, and I will explain what I mean by that, because it's
    coming one day before the first hearing of our House Judiciary
    bipartisan task force on over-criminalization. And here's what
    we're doing the day before we have the task force meeting.
        It's alarming that this bill would turn millions of
    undocumented immigrants into criminals overnight. It's not only
    terrible politics, but it's inhumane policy as well. I was
    hoping that we had turned a corner on this flawed approach
    because we've tried it before.
        Moreover the bill's complete and unchecked delegation of
    immigration enforcement authority to local police, State
    enforcement agencies will endanger public safety, it will
    increase racial profiling, and infringe basic due process
    rights.
        Put simply, it's a dangerous approach to a complicated
    problem and it will harm communities all around the country.
    This bill makes it a crime, potentially a felony, to be an
    undocumented immigrant in this country. And this is not the
    first time that there have been attempts to turn millions of
    undocumented immigrants into criminals. The last time was in
    2005, bill number H.R. 4437, and it spurred massive public
    protests around the country. This bill will do the same thing,
    but in a more subtle way, and by granting States and localities
    total authority to pass their own immigration laws, something
    that even the bill I referred to in 2005 didn't do, it will put
    undocumented immigrants all around the country in even greater
    danger.
        The bill simply turns every police officer in the country
    into an immigration agent. In the eyes of many communities that
    means the public safety mission will become a distant second.
        Let's be clear, this bill will make our communities less
    safe. Study after study has shown that when police become
    immigration agents, crime victims and witnesses don't come
    forward, crimes go unreported and unresolved and unsolved, and
    public safety decreases.
        We know that this legislation would lead to widespread
    racial profiling and unconstitutional arrests of U.S. citizens
    and immigrants alike. How do we know this? Because we've seen
    it in jurisdiction after jurisdiction around the country that
    have entered into these 287(g) agreements with the Department
    of Homeland Security. So what does the bill do? Rather than
    improve on current practice and require more oversight over
    these 287(g) agreements, it grants total enforcement authority
    with no checks at all.
        And so I will put the rest of my statement in the record. I
    thank the Chairman for his indulgence in giving me additional
    time.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        *The information referred to was not available at the time this
    hearing record was finalized, September 30, 2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
    the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not
    being here in a timely fashion myself, but we are hard at work
    on this immigration issue, in many conversations, and that
    detained me from getting back here.
        Successful immigration reform must address effective
    interior enforcement. This is an integral piece of the puzzle.
    We can't just be fixated on securing the border, which
    undoubtedly is an issue of paramount concern. We must focus on
    interior enforcement, or more precisely, what to do with
    unlawful immigrants who make it past the border and legal
    immigrants who violate the terms of their visas and thus become
    unlawfully present in the United States.
        Any real immigration reform effort must guarantee that our
    laws be enforced following a legalization program. This is
    required in order to ensure that future generations do not have
    to deal with once again legalizing millions more people.
    Interior enforcement of our immigration laws is critical to the
    success of our immigration system.
        Unfortunately, the Senate bill actually weakens interior
    enforcement in many areas or is simply ineffectual. The Senate
    bill allows aggravated felons who are currently subject to
    mandatory detention to be released in the care of advocacy
    organizations. The Senate bill provides an unworkable framework
    for deporting gang members. The Senate bill directs DHS to
    ignore criminal convictions under State laws for crimes such as
    human smuggling, harboring, trafficking, and gang crimes when
    adjudicating applications for legalization.
        Today we turn to H.R. 2278, the immigration enforcement
    bill introduced by Trey Gowdy, Chairman of Subcommittee on
    Immigration and Border Security. Mr. Gowdy's legislation
    actually strengthens Federal immigration enforcement. One
    reason why our immigration system is broken today is because
    the present and past Administrations have largely ignored the
    enforcement of our immigration laws. If we want to avoid the
    mistakes of the past we cannot allow the President to continue
    shutting down Federal immigration enforcement efforts
    unilaterally. The SAFE Act will not permit that to happen.
        I remain concerned that whatever enforcement provisions
    Congress passes will be subject to implementation by the
    current Administration, which fails to enforce the laws already
    on the books. DHS has released thousands of illegal and
    criminal immigrant detainees while providing ever-changing
    numbers to Congress regarding the same. DHS is forbidding ICE
    officers from enforcing the laws they are bound to uphold. A
    Federal judge has already ruled DHS' actions are likely in
    violation of Federal law. DHS is placing whole classes of
    unlawful immigrants in enforcement-free zones. DHS claims to be
    removing more aliens than any other Administration, but has to
    generate bogus numbers in order to do so.
        Ultimately, the American people have little trust that an
    Administration which has not enforced the law in the past will
    do so in the future. That is why real immigration reform needs
    to have mechanisms to ensure that the President cannot simply
    turn off the switch on immigration enforcement.
        Mr. Gowdy's bill contains such a mechanism. Not only does
    the bill strengthen immigration enforcement by giving the
    Federal Government the tools it needs to enforce our laws, but
    it also ensures that where the Federal Government fails to act
    States can pick up the slack. Pursuant to the SAFE Act, States
    and localities are provided with specific congressional
    authorization to assist in the enforcement of Federal
    immigration law. States and localities can also enact and
    enforce their own immigration laws as long as they are
    consistent with Federal law.
        The SAFE Act shows how to avoid the mistakes of the past
    with regard to immigration law enforcement, especially the 1986
    immigration law. The bill expands the types of serious criminal
    activity for which we can remove aliens, including criminal
    gang membership, drunk driving, manslaughter, rape, and failure
    to register as a sex offender. The bill ensures these
    individuals cannot take advantage of our generous immigration
    laws.
        In addition to criminal provisions, the bill strengthens
    Federal law to make it more difficult for foreign terrorists
    and other foreign nationals who pose national security concerns
    to enter and remain in the United States. Of note, the bill
    bars foreign terrorists or aliens who threaten national
    security from receiving immigration benefits, such as
    naturalization and discretionary relief from removal. Such
    provisions are particularly relevant following the Boston
    bombing, where naturalized aliens killed, maimed, and injured
    Americans. Under the bill, no immigration benefits can be
    provided to immigrants until all required background and
    security checks are completed, another item that the Senate
    bill fails to include. Rather, the Senate bill actually
    authorizes the Secretary to waive background checks.
        Mr. Gowdy's bill also improves our Nation's first line of
    defense, the visa issuance process. Additionally, the SAFE Act
    lives up to its name and provides much-needed assistance to
    help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers carry
    out their jobs of enforcing Federal immigration laws while
    keeping them safe. Not only does the bill allow local law
    enforcement officials already working in their communities to
    pitch in to enforce our laws, but the bill also strengthens
    national security and protects our communities from those who
    wish to cause us harm. The SAFE Act provides a robust interior
    enforcement strategy that will maintain the integrity of our
    system for the long term.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today,
    and I thank Chairman Gowdy for introducing this game-changing
    legislation.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Virginia.
        The Chair would recognize the gentlelady from California,
    the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Over the past 6 months this Committee has engaged in a
    series of informative and largely civil discussions regarding
    immigration law. With few exceptions, each of the nine
    immigration hearings thus far have shown that Members of this
    Committee recognize that our immigration system is broken and
    that it must be fixed for America's businesses and families.
    Most of the Members have recognized at one time or another that
    deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants is not realistic
    and it would tear parents away from children, separate spouses,
    leave gaping holes in businesses and communities across the
    country.
        That's why today's hearing on H.R. 2278 is so
    disappointing. Portions of the bill should be familiar to the
    Committee because they draw heavily upon bills that we
    considered in the 112th Congress. Provisions in the bill, for
    example, would allow people to be detained indefinitely,
    perhaps permanently, as well as deported based on nothing but
    the discretionary decision of the Secretary of Homeland
    Security without due process. I am confident that some of this
    language would never survive constitutional scrutiny.
        The bill troubles me more, however, because of how similar
    it is to a bill we considered in the 109th Congress, H.R. 4437.
    This bill contains many provisions from that bill, including
    provisions that essentially turn all undocumented immigrants in
    the country, whether they crossed the border or overstayed a
    visa, into criminals and that say that every day they stay in
    the U.S. they continue to commit a crime. Under this bill,
    every day an undocumented father or mother stays in this
    country to feed and care for a child he or she would be
    committing a crime. Under this bill, their family members may
    be committing criminal acts simply for living with them or
    driving them to the doctor.
        This bill then goes further than H.R. 4437 by unleashing
    the States to enact similar laws and by authorizing State and
    local officers across the country to enforce immigration laws.
    Every beat cop would have the power to apprehend, arrest, and
    detain a person based on mere suspicion that the person might
    be unlawfully here, and the States could put them in jail
    simply for being here.
        It's impossible to read Title 1 without thinking of all the
    lessons we have learned in recent years about what happens when
    local police officers are turned into Federal immigration
    agents. We now know that entrusting immigration enforcement to
    local police damages communities policing practices and leaves
    communities less safe. That's because it breeds distrust in the
    community from U.S. citizens, legal residents, and undocumented
    persons alike.
        For years we've heard this from major organizations such as
    the Police Foundation, the International Association of Chiefs
    of Police, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Salt Lake
    City Police Chief Chris Burbank testified at the hearing last
    year that placing local law enforcement officers in the
    position of immigration agents undermines the trust and
    cooperation essential to successful community-oriented
    policing.
        Recently we heard it from a survey of Latinos themselves.
    Forty-five percent of those surveyed said they are now less
    likely to contact the police if they are the victim of a crime
    out of fear that officers will inquire about their immigration
    status or the immigration status of people they know. Seven out
    of 10 respondents who are undocumented said the same thing.
        When victims of crime and people who witness crime are
    afraid to contact the police, crimes go unsolved. When crimes
    go unsolved, communities lose faith in the ability of police to
    keep them safe. Rather than making our communities safer,
    something that the bill's title purports to do, this bill would
    decrease public safety.
        We also now know that placing immigration enforcement
    authority in the hands of States and localities results in
    unconstitutional racial profiling and prolonged unlawful
    detention. The poster child for this bad behavior is Maricopa
    County Joe Arpaio, the self-styled toughest sheriff in America.
    Just last month a Federal judge ruled that Arpaio's office
    engaged in a pattern of unconstitutional racial profiling and
    unlawful detentions while participating in the 287(g) agreement
    with the Federal Government and in the enforcement of Arizona's
    owns immigration laws.
        And Arpaio is not alone. Last year the Justice Department
    concluded that Alamance County Sheriff and his deputies in
    North Carolina engaged in routine discrimination against
    Latinos, which included illegal stops, detentions, and arrests
    without probable cause. The Justice Department also entered
    into settlement agreements with East Haven, Connecticut,
    following an investigation into widespread racial
    discrimination and abuse against Latino residents. The case
    also involved the Federal criminal arrest of police officers on
    charges such as excessive force, false arrest, obstruction, and
    conspiracy.
        Immigration law is complex. Even Federal immigration
    officers highly trained and with decades of experience in
    immigration law sometimes make mistakes leading to the
    detention and removal of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
    residents. Imagine what will happen when we turn over this
    power to people who can't possibly understand the complexities
    of immigration laws, such as the rules surrounding automatic
    acquisition of U.S. citizens, derivative citizenship,
    extensions of stay pending adjudications of petitions and
    applications, withholding of removal, and the list goes on.
    This bill turns a blind eye to these problems, and that is a
    gross understatement.
        We all share the goal of ensuring that immigration laws are
    enforced. Surely we can do improvements. But this system is
    utterly broken and it can't be fully enforced without
    devastating our economy, our businesses, our families, and our
    communities. The approach this bill takes is dangerous and it's
    wrong, and I hope that today's hearing is not a sign of the
    direction in which this Committee is heading, and I yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. We thank the gentlewoman for her
    statement.
        All other Members' opening statements will be made a part
    of the record. And we now welcome our panel today.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much.
        Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded
    in the affirmative.
        And please be seated.
        Sheriff Paul Babeu is an elected official and the chief law
    enforcement officer of Pinal County, Arizona. Sheriff Babeu has
    served as the president of the Arizona Sheriff's Association
    and was named National Sheriff of the Year in 2011 by the
    National Sheriffs' Association. Additionally, Sheriff Babeu
    served his country in the National Guard for 20 years. During
    that time he served a tour in Iraq, as well as a deployment in
    Arizona as part of Operation Jump Start. In 2006 and 2007 he
    worked as the commander of Task Force Yuma supporting the
    United States Border Patrol. Sheriff Babeu earned his master's
    degree in public administration from American International
    College, graduating summa cum laude.
        Mr. Chris Crane currently serves as the president of the
    National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118,
    American Federation of Government Employees. He has worked as
    an immigration enforcement agent for the U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    since 2003. Prior to his service at ICE, Chris served for 11
    years in the United States Marine Corps. He has testified
    before this Committee before.
        Thank you for returning again.
        Sheriff Sam Page is an elected official and the chief law
    enforcement officer of Rockingham County, North Carolina.
    Sheriff Page serves as the--I'm sorry, I think I am stealing
    the thunder of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble,
    who asked, and I agreed, and then forgot to recognize him for
    the purpose of acknowledging Mr. Page, Sheriff Page.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, you may steal my thunder any time
    you like. But before I introduce Sheriff Page, the case to
    which my friend from California referred earlier in North
    Carolina, I think that's still in litigation. I don't think
    it's been resolved at this point.
        Sheriff Page is serving in his fourth term as high sheriff
    of Rockingham County. In addition to that, he has served on the
    National Sheriffs' Association Border and Immigration Committee
    since 2012. Sheriff Page is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force,
    having served 5 years in the Air Force. He is also a graduate
    of the National Security Institute.
        Sam Page is a law enforcement officer par excellence. I
    don't want to embarrass you, Sam, but I'm going to compliment
    you.
        A friend of mine once asked how well I knew Sam Page. I
    said I know him very well. And my friend said he's a good
    sheriff, but more importantly he's a good man. And I echo that,
    and I am honored to introduce him, Mr. Chairman, to my friends
    on the Judiciary Committee.
        Sam, good to have you and your colleagues with us today. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Goodlatte. And thank you. And I will simply add my
    welcome to that given by the distinguished gentleman from North
    Carolina.
        Mr. Jamiel Shaw is the father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., a high
    school football star who was murdered by an illegal alien gang
    member. Jamiel Shaw, Jr., was a 17-year-old honor student being
    recruited by schools such as Stanford and Rutgers when his
    future was cut short by a gang member who was in the United
    States illegally. Mr. Shaw has since campaigned for Jamiel's
    Law to be enacted. This law would prevent Los Angeles from
    being a sanctuary city for illegal alien gang members and would
    implement stronger enforcement measures to prevent illegal
    immigration.
        It is my particular pleasure to introduce the Honorable
    Randy C. Krantz, who serves as the elected Commonwealth's
    Attorney for Bedford City, Virginia, a position he has held
    since 1995. He is the Director for the Bedford County Violent
    Crime Response Team, as well as the legal advisor for the
    Bedford Forensic Nurse Program. Additionally, Mr. Krantz is a
    member of the Southern Virginia Internet Crimes Against
    Children Task Force. He earned his undergraduate degree from
    Lynchburg College and his juris doctorate from the University
    of Richmond, as well as an MAR degree from Liberty University,
    and continued his education in my law firm many, many years
    ago, more than 20.
        You're very welcome today, Randy.
        Ms. Sabine Durden is the mother of Dominic Durden, who was
    killed in a vehicle collision with an illegal immigrant.
    Dominic was a dispatcher for the Riverside County Sheriff's
    Department and a licensed pilot. He was killed when he was
    riding his motorcycle to work and was hit by an illegal
    immigrant in a pickup truck who had two drunken driving
    convictions but was not in possession of a driver's license.
    Dominic was Ms. Durden's only child.
        Ms. Karen Tumlin is the managing attorney for the Los
    Angeles office of the National Immigration Law Center. She has
    been with NILC since 2005 and her focus has been on serving
    low-income immigrants. Ms. Tumlin also worked as a research
    associate at the Urban Institute before going to law school,
    where she worked on immigration issues. Additionally, she spent
    a year as a Luce Scholar in Thailand working on a study on
    child trafficking for the United Nations International Labor
    Organization. Ms. Tumlin earned a juris doctorate and a
    master's degree in public policy from the University of
    California at Berkeley.
        Ms. Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro is the director of civic
    engagement and immigration at the National Council of La Raza.
    Ms. Martinez oversees the organization's work to advance NCCR
    immigration priorities, as well as efforts to expand Latino
    policy advocacy and electoral participation. A naturalized
    United States citizen, she is a graduate of Occidental College
    and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
        Welcome to each and every one of you. This is a large
    panel. And I want to assure each of you that your written
    statements will be entered into the record in their entirety,
    and I ask that each of you summarize your testimony in 5
    minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a
    timing light on your table. When the light switches from green
    to yellow you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony.
    When the light turns red it signals that the witness' 5 minutes
    have expired.
        And I want to also note that I have an amendment on the
    floor in the National Defense Authorization Act coming up in a
    little bit and I will have to step out. Chairman Gowdy or
    others will fill the Chair. We will keep the hearing going in a
    smooth fashion. I apologize in advance for not being here for
    all of it, but I will be here for almost all of it, and all of
    your testimony is important to me.
        And we will start with you, Sheriff Babeu. Am I pronouncing
    that correct? Good. Thank you.

                TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PAUL BABEU,
                 SHERIFF OF PINAL COUNTY, FLORENCE, AZ

        Sheriff Babeu. Sheriff Paul works just as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for allowing me to
    testify today. A little bit about Pinal County. We are larger
    geographically than the State of Connecticut. We only have 15
    counties in Arizona. And we're still a rural county, we have
    400,000 residents. And we're a full service law enforcement
    agency, meaning that we're primary responders to the majority
    of the residents of our county.
        We're not on the border. In fact, we're 70 miles north of
    the border. Yet we're the number one pass-through county in the
    United States, over 3,000 counties. How can that be? Well,
    terrain features, the interstates naturally funnel through
    Pinal County on their way to Metro Phoenix and then other
    parts, possibly to your districts and people that you
    represent.
        According to a recent GAO study, says that 56 percent of
    the border is not under operational control. That's a term that
    has been used in the past, a metric, if you will, by the Border
    Patrol. In my opinion and the opinion of most Americans, 44
    percent is a failing grade. America can secure the border if we
    replicate the success of what's been accomplished in the Yuma
    Sector.
        Mr. Chairman, you pointed out in my introduction that I
    served as a commanding officer, as an Army officer for a year
    and a half in Yuma. And I could speak to that experience.
    Essentially what happened there is, of the nine sectors from
    California to Texas, we, in direct support of our heroes in
    Border Patrol, were able to bring a 90 percent reduction in
    illegal entries and drug smuggling in that sector. So I reject
    anybody saying that the border cannot be secured.
        Three key elements in the McCain-Kyl plan, our former
    Senator Kyl from the State of Arizona. I was proud to be the
    prime author of that legislation, and the three key components
    of that was 6,000 armed soldiers, which the Senate bill does
    not have, for a period of 2 years so you can get in sequence to
    the second step, is built and complete a double barrier fence,
    originally authored by former Representative from San Diego
    Rankin--not Rankin--Duncan Hunter. In fact, President Clinton,
    to his great credit, signed that bill. He wanted three barriers
    and he gave him two. And it's not just build a border fence for
    2,000 miles, it's 700 miles of the approximately 2,000-mile
    border. And it's already predetermined area, that high-
    trafficked areas and areas where there's built-up or urban
    centers that are there. And you have infrared cameras, cameras,
    lighting, and sensors to detect incursions as well.
        Third, in sequence, is this novel concept of enforcing the
    law. When that happened--and it couldn't get there in the Yuma
    Sector until the first two components were there of the armed
    soldiers and building the infrastructure necessary--and when
    they enforced the law we saw the numbers drop dramatically. So
    that's what's called the proof of concept that should be
    brought to all other sectors.
        I strongly oppose the Senate's--what's referred to as the
    gang of eight plan because they offer all of these other items
    of a path to citizenship prior to ascertaining and guaranteeing
    that the border is secured, that the laws are enforced.
        Secretary Napolitano almost on a daily basis proclaims that
    the U.S.-Mexican border is secured. As part of the legislation,
    why I favor this as opposed to the Senate bill, is the Senate
    allows the Secretary of Homeland Security 6 months to come up
    with a plan to secure the border. My question is, I believe
    that was her job for the last 4\1/2\ years, is secure the
    border. And when you look at numbers of 123,000 illegals that
    have been apprehended where I live in the Tucson Sector, that
    is last year, ladies and gentlemen. And that just reflects
    those who were apprehended, not those who got away or got
    through.
        And last, just over a year ago, our county, Pinal County
    lead the 21-member law enforcement agency effort with the
    largest drug busts in the history of Arizona, $2 billion to $3
    billion, against members of the Sinaloa Cartel, 76 members
    arrested, 108 firearms--not handguns but rifles--and AK-47s.
    And these what in law enforcement we call clues that the border
    is not more secure.
        The Secretary and others point to the dip in the numbers,
    and that is more a reflection of the economy. I am here to
    stand in support of Mr. Gowdy's SAFE Act. And we've seen this
    movie before, in 1986, and if we go down that path it's not
    going to end well and it's going to have more devastating
    effect.
        Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Sheriff Paul.
        [The testimony of Sheriff Babeu follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. And we'll now welcome Mr. Crane.

     TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND
        CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
                          GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

        Mr. Crane. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking
    Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee. We are still
    reading through the SAFE Act, introduced by Congressman Trey
    Gowdy. However, my initial reaction is one of great
    appreciation and support for Congressman Gowdy's efforts. I
    applaud Congressman Gowdy and his staff for creating a bill
    that makes public safety a priority through reforms to
    enforcement.
        Unfortunately, gang of eight legislation currently before
    the Senate reflects an absence of law enforcement input as it
    contains no tangible plan for border security and essentially
    ignores interior enforcement altogether, while simultaneously
    creating a path to citizenship for members of criminal street
    gangs and most other criminal aliens. We hope that members of
    both parties in the House and the Senate will review the
    provisions of the SAFE Act as gang of eight legislation ignores
    interior enforcement and continues practices which have led to
    the Nation's current immigration problems.
        With visa overstays accounting for approximately 40 percent
    of the 11 million aliens currently in the United States
    illegally, S. 744 speaks only of increases to border
    enforcement, not interior enforcement. Investments in border
    security will never address the problem of visa overstays,
    which again account for nearly half of all illegal aliens
    currently in the United States. Investments on the border will
    also do nothing to ensure that everyone who successfully
    crosses the border illegally is apprehended and removed, as
    that is also ICE's interior enforcement mission.
        Since 9/11, the Border Patrol has tripled in size, while
    the interior enforcement component of ICE appears to have
    become smaller. ICE is tasked with apprehending and removing 11
    million illegal aliens in the United States, as well as 30
    million aliens legally in the U.S. who are subject to removal
    for status violations, generally being criminal convictions. In
    short, ICE polices 40 million people in 50 States, Guam, and
    Puerto Rico, with just 5,000 officers, a force half the size of
    the Los Angeles Police Department. Of those 5,000 officers,
    hundreds work as detention guards in detention centers instead
    of performing law enforcement duties due to the elimination of
    detention guard positions during transition from INS to DHS.
    The transition also split ICE's 5,000 officers into two
    separate with two different arrest authorities, thereby
    crippling the agency's ability to use its handful of officers
    across the full spectrum of immigration enforcement.
        The gang of eight's so-called comprehensive reform ignores
    red flags at ICE and does nothing to reform interior
    enforcement in an agency tasked with that mission. The SAFE
    Act, however, takes aggressive steps to fix these problems. It
    adds additional officer positions, establishes the same arrest
    authorities for all officers, takes law enforcement agents out
    of detention centers, replacing them with detention guards,
    provides additional ICE trial attorneys, support staff, and
    much-needed protective equipment for officer and agent who face
    growing criminal populations that are increasingly violent and
    confrontational.
        In order to combat the criminal alien problem within the
    United States and keep dangerous criminals off the streets
    drafters, of the SAFE Act clearly reviewed current immigration
    laws and identified areas of concern in an effort to eliminate
    loopholes for criminals and keep communities safe. The SAFE Act
    adds upon aggravated felony charges involving the sexual abuse
    of children, homicide, manslaughter, child pornography,
    firearms offenses, passport fraud, stalking, and child abuse.
    It makes gang members deportable, detains dangerous criminal
    aliens that we can't deport, and expands on charges for
    espionage, crimes again government, and other criminal
    activities. It provides support for local law enforcement and
    legally strengthens ICE detainers, keeping criminals off the
    street.
        In conclusion, it is our opinion that the approach taken in
    the SAFE Act is the approach needed to fix our broken
    immigration system. To effectively address the thousands of
    concerns throughout our Nation's broken immigration system, we
    must take a diligent and systematic approach of reviewing
    current laws, practices, and resources to prevent repeating the
    mistakes that currently exist and ensure that future laws can
    be effectively implemented and enforced.
        Thank you, and that concludes my testimony.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Crane.
        [The testimony of Mr. Crane follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Sheriff Page, welcome.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SAM S. PAGE, SHERIFF OF ROCKINGHAM
                   COUNTY, WENTWORTH, NORTH CAROLINA

        Sheriff Page. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Co-Chair, and
    distinguished Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
    Judiciary Committee, I gave greetings from Rockingham County,
    North Carolina. I believe that you all in Congress have one of
    the toughest jobs in our Nation today: You're being asked to
    fix a broken immigration system in the U.S. and to make sure
    that your legislation will provide a solution that will last
    for many years to come.
        I come before you today not as an expert in immigration law
    or border security, I am just one of 3,080 sheriff's in America
    that is asking for your help in solving our border security and
    immigration problem.
        Between 2011 and 2012, while working with the Drug
    Enforcement Agency task force in my county, 12 Mexican cartel
    associates were arrested in our county, along with lots of
    Marijuana, millions of dollars of cash, kilos of cocaine, AR-15
    rifles, and assorted firearms. The sheriff mentioned earlier,
    next to my county, Alamance County reported that he had two
    drug-related execution-style murders in the past 5 years.
    According to the Drug Enforcement Agency report, North Carolina
    is second place compared to the Atlanta region in drug
    trafficking routes by the Mexican drug cartel. And these
    cartels reported to be operating in almost 1,200 cities in
    America.
        In 2 to 3 days--here is the relationship to the border--2
    to 3 days the illegal drugs traveling from the border can be
    anywhere in the United States and also in rural Rockingham
    County, North Carolina. In North Carolina since 2010 I've
    process working with the Federal ICE Secure Community Programs
    151 persons that are criminally charged that are illegal in the
    U.S. Two of the detainees have returned back to be rearrested.
    It has cost us $330,000 to house those inmates and
    approximately 66 percent of those arrested were charged with
    traffic-related offenses.
        I have traveled to Arizona and Texas in the past 3 years to
    see firsthand what my fellow sheriffs, what they're dealing
    with along the border, experiencing drug trafficking, human
    trafficking, illegal immigrations, and other than Mexican
    crossings along our porous southern border of Mexico. And this
    information is being shared with sheriffs from North Carolina
    and across the U.S.
        While I was at a briefing I had the opportunity to ask the
    question of Secretary Napolitano. I asked her, why have we not
    declared the Mexican drug cartel a terrorist organization, and
    what is the reluctance for this Administration to place a
    regular military force on our southern border with Mexico? And
    her answer to me was, Sheriff, we're not at war with Mexico.
        But, you know, can you imagine how frustrating that answer
    was to me, because I tend to differ with the Secretary. Because
    in the past 6 years 58,000 Mexican citizens have been murdered
    by the Mexican drug cartel in Mexico just south of our border.
    That's a war, that's a drug war.
        I have read the proposed House bill 2278, and these are a
    few of my comments. Quickly, I will state the bill empowers all
    law enforcement in America to cooperate making our communities
    safer. Federal ICE agents get the congressional backing that
    they've needed for a long time. The bill allows for Border
    Patrol agents to cross Federal land without fear of sanction
    and legal roadblocks. The bill places oversight and
    accountability on the Secretary of Homeland Security. The bill
    provides the needed funding for immigration detention resources
    and detention officers.
        The bill does not reward municipalities that have chosen to
    become sanctuary cities in violation of our U.S. Immigration
    law. The bill reduces the chances of criminals of all types
    from receiving benefits in status in our country. Because I
    believe that Senate bill 744 we talked about earlier, I believe
    that it does give a path to citizenship for those criminally
    charged who are illegal in our country.
        The bill improves our visa issuance process, and it also
    establishes an ICE advisory council to Congress. I have read
    the public safe provisions of Senate bill 744 introduced by the
    gang of eight committee. I have also reviewed the proposed SAFE
    Act, H.R. 2278. In the short amount of pages your House bill
    will restore the rule of law in immigration enforcement in
    America, as well as the authority reserved for the ICE agents
    to conduct proper interior and immigration enforcement with
    those powers protected by congressional legislation.
        Senate bill 744 fails to meet that standard, in my opinion,
    and I believe its provisions would not only provide amnesty for
    criminal violators, but could endanger the public, which I as
    sheriff am sworn to protect. I do not believe that S. 744 has
    true intentions of tracking visa overstay violators, because if
    it was the intention biometric tracking would be used at all
    international ports of entry. And costs was stated recently in
    debates in the Senate about the decline in that technology
    usage. In my opinion, you can't place the cost on one single
    American life when it comes to homeland security.
        Secretary Napolitano said that this was not an immigration
    bill, but instead a public safety bill. My comment, is if it
    was a public safety bill how come law enforcement wasn't
    involved in the crafting this bill?
        Lastly, border security in S. 744 seems to be secondary to
    amnesty. Mr. Chairman, I personally want to thank you all for
    giving me the opportunity to come before you today and answer
    your questions. I look forward to any questions you might have.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Sheriff.
        [The testimony of Sheriff Page follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Shaw, welcome.

    TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, SR., COMMITTEE TO PASS JAMIEL'S LAW,
                            LOS ANGELES, CA

        Mr. Shaw. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodlatte and Ranking
    Member Conyers. Thank you for holding this hearing.
        On March 2, 2008, the American dream came to a screeching
    halt for my son, Jamiel Shaw, II, also known as Jamiel Shaw,
    Jr. Jamiel was just 17 years young and a football superstar
    destined for greatness when he was gunned down three doors from
    my home while his mother was serving in Iraq.
        Jamiel was a junior at Los Angeles High School and already
    being looked at by universities such as Rutgers and Stanford.
    The last time I spoke to my son he was on his way home from the
    mall. I can still hear his voice: Be right home, dad, I'm right
    around the corner. He never made it home and our lives are
    permanently separated.
        The next time I saw my son he was laying on the ground
    dead. According to the coroner who testified at the trial,
    Jamiel was shot in the stomach first, and while he was lying on
    the ground with his hands covering his head pleading for his
    life, he was shot again. The bullet went through his hand and
    spread into his head.
        On the day of my son's funeral the LAPD came to our home to
    inform us that they had captured the person they believed had
    murdered Jamiel. We also learned that he was executed by an
    illegal alien gang member from Mexico with a history of
    violence. We often hear supporters of people who are here
    illegally say that the children were brought to USA by no fault
    of their own, as if that makes everything right. But many
    people overlook the fact that their parents made a choice to
    violate our laws. The parents of my son's killer made a choice
    to leave their country illegally, entered America illegally,
    and their illegal alien son made the choice to join the gang.
        The illegal alien charged with murdering my son had been
    previously arrested in November 2007 for assault with a deadly
    weapon and battery on a police officer, yet he was given early
    release from jail on March 1st, 2008, a Saturday night. The
    very next day he executed my son and left him for dead like he
    was a piece of trash in the street.
        According to the District Attorney's office in Los Angeles,
    Jamiel was executed because of the color of his skin and the
    color of his red Spider-Man backpack. We learned from Sheriff
    Baca of the LA County Sheriff's Department that shot callers
    from jail order Latino gangbanger inmates to kill Black males
    when they are released from jail. So why aren't politicians
    outraged? Could it be because some politicians care more about
    potential votes of illegal aliens granted amnesty rather than
    the safety of U.S. citizens?
        Sheriff Baca had a violent gang member in the custody that
    was also in the country illegally, and yet they still released
    him back onto our streets to murder our children. Why?
    Politicians say they want the violent ones, but too often when
    they catch them they simply release them back into the
    community only to commit more crimes.
        To this day we still don't know why the Sheriff's
    Department negligently released an illegal alien gangbanger
    from jail. And why was he given a 6-month early release? We
    still don't any why Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
    didn't pick him up from jail or if ICE was even called by the
    Sheriff's Department for pick up. They refuse to tell us what
    happened.
        According to a report conducted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
    several years ago, the majority of all gangs in the USA
    consists of illegal alien gang members. In spite of this
    report, Senator Feinstein still supports the useless gang
    provisions in the gang of eight illegal immigration bill, which
    rewards illegal alien gangs with a path to citizenship. Why?
    Why would elected officials reward gangbangers who are in the
    country illegally with amnesty and a pathway to citizenship?
        The trial of my son's killer finally began on April 24,
    2012. On May 9, 2012, he was found guilty of first degree
    murder, for which the jury recommended the death penalty on May
    23, 2012. On November the 2nd, 2012, the judge upheld the
    jury's verdict and sentence. My son's killer is now in San
    Quentin on death row waiting for his execution and my son's
    body is now in the Inglewood Cemetery Mortuary in Inglewood,
    California, waiting for justice.
        My family and I supported a law called Jamiel's Law and we
    continue to support Jamiel's Law. Jamiel's Law, like H.R. 2278,
    will deport illegal alien gang members from the USA. Like H.R.
    2278, Jamiel's Law would not wait for them to commit other
    crimes, but would deport them for being in a gang while living
    in the country illegally.
        This is why we strongly support the Strengthen and Fortify
    Enforcement Act, H.R. 2278, also known as the SAFE Act. The
    SAFE Act makes being in a gang and being in the country
    illegally a deportable offense. We hope all elected officials
    will support Congressman Trey Gowdy's bill.
        I would like to end by saying, 5 years have passed and
    there are still many, many unanswered questions regarding the
    execution of my son Jamiel. I would like to ask every one here,
    every one listening who supports the people here illegally, and
    every one who wants to help people here illegally a question:
    What would you do if your child was shot in the stomach and
    shot in the head by an illegal alien documented gangbanger
    negligently released from jail? Would you still support illegal
    immigration and unsecured borders? I think not.
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about my
    beloved son Jamiel Shaw, II, who I love with all my heart and
    soul. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Shaw, for that very
    compelling testimony, and you have all of our shared sympathy
    for that dramatic loss.
        [The testimony of Mr. Shaw follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Krantz, welcome.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE RANDY C. KRANTZ, COMMONWEALTH'S
                         ATTORNEY, BEDFORD, VA

        Mr. Krantz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Conyers, other
    Members of the Committee, it is a privilege for a local
    prosecutor who is charged with the duty of faithfully executing
    the laws in their jurisdiction to come before this Committee
    and have an opportunity to be heard. I want to tell you that I
    can only imagine the difficult job you have of balancing and
    weighing all the competing interests and needs and fundamental
    fairness.
        But the fact remains that, like politics, all crime is
    local. At the end of the day it is the States and the
    localities that have the ultimate responsibility to protect
    their citizens by faithfully executing the laws, protecting and
    serving.
        You've heard from Mr. Shaw. You'll hear from Mrs. Durden.
    Sitting behind me today is my chief deputy Wes Nance, who is in
    charge of prosecuting crimes against children. And one of the
    things that we have learned in prosecuting those types of
    crimes is that three elements really are the key to successful
    law enforcement. And I believe that Mr. Gowdy's bill helps
    accomplish those three things. And that is it enhances the
    communication, cooperation, and coordination of all dedicated
    law enforcement officers who are trying to protect and serve.
        If we do not have the communication and coordination and
    the cooperation, then local law enforcement is handcuffed.
    Every day across courthouses in each State, in each town, in
    each hamlet, in each little city there will be a commonwealth's
    attorney or a district attorney, a victim witness advocate
    sitting somewhere explaining to a family why a tragedy has
    happened to their loved one. In the context of crimes against
    children we have learned that we can cooperate with our Federal
    colleagues. We can create a seamless web of protection to
    protect children from Internet predators, to work alongside of
    and in cooperation with ATF in enforcing firearm laws, with the
    Drug Administration in enforcing narcotics trafficking and
    working in multidisciplinary task forces that involve local,
    State and Federal. This isn't an either/or solution, but it has
    to be a purposeful solution.
        In our county, in Bedford County, also sitting behind me
    today is Mr. Gary Babb. Mr. Babb was a sheriff's deputy, the
    sergeant of detectives in Bedford County. His son Adam was
    struck and maimed by a drunk driver that was an illegal alien.
    This particular driver, Mr. Ramos, had previous convictions for
    driving suspended and manufacturing false driver's licenses. At
    the time he struck Adam Babb, it became his second DUI
    conviction.
        This bill, if in effect and if that situation happened
    again, someone like Mr. Ramos would be deportable. In my
    written testimony I indicated that at the time that Mr. Ramos
    may not have been deportable. I have since learned, just today,
    he may have in fact have been deported. And the reason that I
    indicate that, part of the issue is between local and Federal
    enforcement is those communication channels where we can obtain
    the information that we need that when we sit down with those
    victims and we explain to the families what has happened to the
    offender, when will they be released, anything that can assist
    us to provide that closure, to provide that information would
    be of great assistance to local law enforcement. But again the
    key elements are communication, coordination, and cooperation.
        I believe that this bill gives us the opportunity to do
    that. As a commonwealth's attorney, as a prosecutor, it is just
    much as my job to clear the innocent as it is to convict the
    guilty. And I believe that all dedicated prosecutors who
    operate from that ethical paradigm share that view. Nothing
    prevents local, State, and Federal agencies working together in
    cooperation, but the first step is to fully fund and fully man
    the personnel at the Federal level who have the primary
    responsibility to do that.
        This bill would allow that to be done. It would also allow
    the local and State prosecutors, law enforcement, and other
    dedicated professionals to work alongside. One of the key
    interests for prosecutors is that it would provide training and
    education and the ability to learn and to work alongside.
        So, Members of Congress, it is my humble request that you
    consider this bill and note our support for it. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you Mr. Krantz.
        [The testimony of Mr. Krantz follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Goodlatte. Ms. Durden, welcome.

                    TESTIMONY OF SABINE A. DURDEN,
              MOTHER OF DOMINIC DURDEN, MORENO VALLEY, CA

        Ms. Durden. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Yeah, hit the button on the microphone
    there.
        Ms. Durden. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity----
        Mr. Goodlatte. Pull it closer to you as well.
        Ms. Durden [continuing]. To testify today. Thank you.
        Last year around this time, my life seemed very normal and
    ordinary. My only child Dominic, my best friend, my rock and
    support system, shared a house, the bills and responsibilities.
    We enjoyed each other's company and in 30 years were never
    apart for longer than 3 weeks. He brought nothing but pure joy
    into my life, and I so loved just being Dom's mom.
        He was born on January 22, 1982, in Germany. At the age of
    10, we moved to the USA and adapted very well to our new lives
    here. I was a German immigrant myself and became a U.S.
    citizen. Dominic enjoyed the ROTC program and later got his
    private pilot's license. He took an internship with a local TV
    station. He also volunteered with FEMA, the local emergency
    response force, and at different fire stations. In 2002 he
    received the Volunteer of the Year Award from the city of
    Moreno Valley for giving over 1,000 hours of his time.
        Dominic was always a 4.0 student. He accumulated 87 letters
    of recommendations and 111 school and work award certificates,
    some of them from former President Bill Clinton and U.S.
    Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Dominic also
    received the 2013 Presidential Award from CPRA, the California
    Public Safety Radio Association.
        Seven years ago he became a 911 dispatcher for Riverside
    Sheriff's Department and worked a very tough and stressful job.
    He loved that challenging task, and every time he was on duty,
    the deputies out in the field would feel safe and in good
    hands. They trusted him and called him the best dispatcher
    around.
        His ultimate goal was to become a helicopter pilot for the
    Police Department. Law enforcement was his passion. His
    coworkers became his friends, and he was a huge part of their
    lives and families. His laugh and presence would light up a
    room. Life was great and so many more awesome things and
    wonderful events to come.
        But, however, life changed brutally and instantly on July
    12, 2012, at 5:45 a.m. My world as I knew it was torn into
    shreds and my heart ripped into pieces. My only child, the love
    of my life, the reason for being was taken from me in the blink
    of an eye. No words can describe the excruciating, deep, and
    agonizing pain you feel when you get that kind of call to tell
    you that your precious life that you brought into this world
    will not come home anymore.
        It's difficult to explain to you what and how I feel of not
    having my incredible son around anymore. A home that was filled
    with joy and laughter is now an empty and quiet house, and the
    pictures, the locket with his ashes around my neck, and the
    precious memories are all I have left.
        This is enough pain for a lifetime, but it gets much worse.
    I was informed that the driver of the truck that killed my son
    instantly was a 24-year-old from Guatemala here illegally
    without a license, without insurance or a legally registered
    vehicle, and on a probation from a prior DUI. And to add even
    more pain and grief, this guy had a lengthy arrest record and
    has been in and out of court and prison prior to this.
        Juan Tzun was arrested for grand theft and armed robbery in
    November 2008 and given 3 years probation. In August 2010, he
    was arrested for a DUI and a probation violation and given 3
    more years of probation. In May 2012, he was arrested again on
    a DUI while on probation from the prior DUI and was given
    probation again. Less than 60 days later, he killed my son.
        Since 2008, Tzun had been given a free pass to do what he
    wants without consequences or actions from our laws. He knew he
    was unlicensed. He knew he wasn't allowed to drive. But on July
    12, 2012, he did what he has been doing all these years,
    flaunting our laws. He hit and killed my son instantly, and all
    he got charged with was a misdemeanor for making an unsafe left
    turn.
        He was in jail for a short time, posted bail, and then
    taken into ICE custody, where he was granted bail by a Federal
    judge and walked out after paying $10,000. The man who risked
    everyone's life unlicensed and illegal was free to continue to
    break all of our laws.
        At last month's sentencing the judge read 16 impact letters
    that cried out for a tough sentence. Tzun was allowed to speak
    and took no responsibility, no ownership, showed no remorse, or
    offered any apology. He told us that God takes life, gives
    life, and he was simply on his way to work. He clearly showed
    all of us and the judge that he will continue to do what he
    wants without any regard for anyone else or the law. And still,
    the judge only gave him a measly 90 days in jail with 5 years
    probation.
        I felt victimized all over and lost all my trust and faith
    in the system and the law. Everyone who has learned about the
    case also has expressed outrage and disbelief in how our system
    failed in such a huge way. My son did not have to die on that
    tragic day if the system and laws had been working. Tzun should
    have been deported immediately after his first arrest in 2008,
    but he wasn't. He should have been detained and then deported
    after his first DUI, but he wasn't. He should have been
    detained and deported after his second DUI, but he wasn't.
        Why does the Department of Homeland Security protect
    illegal alien criminals? I have learned that my story and how I
    was treated is not exception, but the rule. I am now begging
    all of you to please make a huge impact in all of our lives. We
    can't lose any more loved ones to unlicensed drivers who kill
    over 7,200 victims per year, of which 4,000 are killed by
    illegal aliens.
        The SAFE Act would help prevent this from happening to
    another family, another fine young person. The bill will
    improve immigration law enforcement so that more criminal
    illegal aliens will be removed from our communities and fewer
    will try to come in the first place. It will allow ICE to
    deport criminals quickly without waiting months or years for an
    immigration judge. The bill makes anyone who is convicted of
    two DUI offenses deportable. The bill will give more resources
    to ICE to do its job. This is badly needed because ICE agents
    want to do their duty but they do not have enough officers and
    enough funding to deport the huge number of illegal alien
    criminals.
        Because illegal aliens have no fear of being caught and
    deported, they behave with a sense of impunity and lack of
    personal responsibility for their conduct and the safety of
    others.
        Finally, the bill would allow local governments and law
    enforcement agencies to assist ICE by arresting illegal aliens
    they encounter. If ICE had more funds for detention of
    criminals, then Tzun would not have been released on bond while
    awaiting trial and he would not have been a risk to others.
    Please don't let one of your loved ones become the next victim.
    Please pass the SAFE Act this year. And thank you so much for
    letting me testify.
        Mr. Gowdy [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Durden. And on behalf
    of all of us, we express our sympathy to you for your loss.
        [The testimony of Ms. Durden follows:]

                                   SUPPLEMENT

                                   __________
        Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Tumlin.

       TESTIMONY OF KAREN C. TUMLIN, MANAGING ATTORNEY, NATIONAL
                         IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

        Ms. Tumlin. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and
    Members of the Committee----
        Mr. Gowdy. You may want to make sure the green light's on,
    on your microphone. Is it on?
        Ms. Tumlin. How about now?
        Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the
    Committee, it's my pleasure to be here today. Thank you for
    this opportunity to discuss the SAFE Act and why it would have
    serious and far-reaching negative consequences if enacted.
        The SAFE Act, if enacted, would radically change the laws
    and policies governing immigration in the United States. I want
    to focus on three key ways that it would do that. First, it
    would obliterate Federal oversight and control over our
    Nation's immigration policies. Secondly, it would put into the
    hands of State and local jurisdictions the ability to detain,
    essentially without limit, potentially indefinitely,
    individuals based solely on suspicion that they might be
    removable from this country. Third, it would radically increase
    detention for nothing more than civil immigration violations.
        The impact of these changes would be nothing short of
    disastrous on American families and communities. It would lead
    to patterns of unjustified and unconstitutional detentions, as
    well as patterns of unconstitutional racial profiling based
    merely on one's appearance or the fact that they may speak with
    an accent.
        What I would like to do is focus on just two provisions in
    the SAFE Act and explain them a little bit. Of course I am
    happy to answer any questions that the Committee Members may
    have afterwards.
        So first, the SAFE Act would allow not only every State,
    but also any locality within the State to pass civil or
    criminal laws so long as those laws mirror Federal immigration
    law. This would not be a patchwork of 50 State immigration
    regimes. It would be literally thousands upon thousands of
    different regimes. Make no mistake, and let's be clear about
    this: This is not cooperation of State and localities with
    Federal officials in terms of enforcing immigration law. It
    puts States and localities in the driver's seat and the Federal
    Government in the back seat.
        I want to give you an example of how this plays out. A
    couple of years ago, Georgia tried to do exactly this, and we
    sued them in court. They passed a State criminal penalty to
    criminally prosecute individuals who were harboring or
    transporting undocumented individuals. They said, this mirrors
    Federal law, we can do it.
        However, when they were defending that law in court, they
    made clear that they intended to prosecute U.S. citizens,
    teenagers who were driving their mother to the grocery store to
    get milk. And so the question before the Committee is: Is that
    good policy? Does that make sense? Do we want to prosecute
    overnight everyday acts of kindness by U.S. citizens to their
    family members?
        The second provision I would like to highlight has already
    been referenced this morning in opening statements. It's a
    provision that we've seen before. It just takes a different
    form. This provision would overnight allow for criminal
    penalties, criminal prosecution against the 11 million
    Americans in waiting who are undocumented now and members of
    our communities and our families. And again, the question is:
    Do we want to criminalize that mother? Do we want to spend
    precious resources detaining and deporting people who are part
    of our communities and part of our families?
        We don't have to guess at what would happen when you give
    this kind of immigration enforcement power to State and local
    governments. The evidence is piling up. Again, it's referenced
    in the written testimony. It's been referenced this morning. We
    see it in Federal finding after Federal finding, from the
    Department of Justice against the 287(g) programs that were run
    by Maricopa County and Alamance County.
        We also have seen it as the State efforts to implement
    their own immigration laws have taken effect. And, again, I'll
    give you an example. This one is from Alabama. When Alabama's
    racial profiling law was allowed to take effect, we staffed a
    hotline with our legal partners to take calls from individuals
    about what was happening. And what we heard was story after
    story after story of individuals who were being stopped based
    nothing more on their skin color.
        I would like to urge the Committee to reject this wrong-
    headed and single-minded approach to the deep issues in our
    immigration system.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Tumlin.
        [The testimony of Karen Tumlin follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Gowdy. Ms. Martinez.

      TESTIMONY OF CLARISSA MARTINEZ-DE-CASTRO, DIRECTOR OF CIVIC
        ENGAGEMENT AND IMMIGRATION, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA

        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Thank you, Acting Chairman Gowdy
    and Ranking Member Conyers, for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of NCLR.
        There is clearly too much tragedy related to letting this
    issue continue unresolved. For the last two decades, the
    problems in our immigration system have largely prompted one
    prescription: enforcement. While enforcement is essential,
    alone it cannot fix all of those problems which are resolvable
    if we don't keep providing a one-dimensional response no matter
    its consequences.
        The Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act unfortunately
    largely focuses on adding strength to an old prescription that
    has not cured our ills but will have detrimental side effects.
    While it includes some needed provisions, such as ensuring
    enforcement agents have equipment they need, prosecuting
    criminal smuggling rings and human smuggling rings, the
    benefits are far outweighed by some of its other provisions.
        And let's be clear: No one argues that the perpetrators of
    the crimes and tragedies described here today should stay in
    our communities. That should not happen. But this bill would
    make Arizona's SB 1070 the law of the land. Known as the ``show
    me your papers'' law, 1070 was condemned by the country's civil
    rights community because it legitimized racial profiling and
    every facet of mainstream America was represented among those
    opposing it, including members of law enforcement.
        Frustration over Federal inaction to fix our broken
    immigration system led many Americans to express support for
    it, but not because they thought 1070 would fix the problem,
    but because they wanted action. Since then, the message coming
    from States that debated copycat laws, and 31 States rejected
    that approach while the 6 that adopted it face lawsuits and
    injunctions. The message was that only the Federal Government
    could fix our immigration system the way that is required. This
    Committee has the ability to provide the real solutions, and it
    is imperative that you fix the system, not make things worse.
        But rather than assert Congress' responsibility to restore
    an orderly system, this bill poses a massive and unnecessary
    delegation of authority. The effect of that delegation will be
    to create a patchwork of laws that will add more chaos, not
    more order, to our immigration system. There is widespread
    evidence that delegating to States and localities the
    enforcement of Federal immigration laws threatens civil rights,
    and that has been mentioned here by Members, as well as Ms.
    Tumlin.
        By expanding such practices, H.R. 2278 would lead to racial
    profiling and wrongful detention because everyone who looks
    ``illegal'' would be subject to law enforcement stops, arrests,
    and detention. And it would criminalize otherwise innocent
    behavior. The legislation would increase the possibility, for
    example, that a church taking in undocumented children after
    their mother got deported would be subject to harboring
    charges.
        To some, the violations of rights and values of ``show me
    your papers'' policies may seem just like collateral damage. To
    the Nation's 52 million Hispanics, 75 percent of whom are
    United States citizens, the damage is not collateral at all.
    According to the Pew Research Center, one in 10 Latino citizens
    and immigrants alike report being stopped and questioned about
    their immigration status. That means that over a few years,
    most Hispanics face a virtual statistical certainty that they
    will be stopped by police based on their ethnicity. If that
    were happening to all Americans, I suspect we would not be
    having this debate.
        A patchwork of immigration laws is bad for the Nation and
    is a recipe for disaster for the Latino community. At a time
    when momentum is building for the immigration reform our
    country deserves, it is disheartening to be taking a look back
    instead of forward. Our country deserves better.
        The way you restore the rule of law is to have a legal
    immigration system that takes the legitimate traffic out of the
    black market, allows immigrants to come with visas and vetted
    rather than with smugglers, and allows immigrants who are
    working and raising families in the U.S. to come forward, go
    through criminal background checks, and get in the system and
    on the books if they qualify.
        The enforcement-and-deportation-only approach cannot get us
    there. Adding more layers to it may seem the politically easy
    thing to do, and this Committee has been doing almost
    exclusively that for the last 20 years. In this case, those
    proposed new layers in the name of immigration enforcement will
    have serious negative effects across the country and especially
    in communities where people look like me.
        I urge you to take the smarter, more comprehensive approach
    and pass the real solutions that we need. And I agree with Mr.
    Labrador, who yesterday said that we need to have a
    comprehensive approach to immigration because it is the right
    thing to do and it is the right policy. And I urge him and all
    of you to make those true solutions a reality. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Ms. Martinez.
        [The testimony of Ms. Martinez-De-Castro follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Gowdy. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
    Alabama, Mr. Bachus, for his questions.
        Mr. Bachus. Thank you.
        Let me address the two witnesses at the end of the table.
    And I think you know that I have advocated for a comprehensive
    approach because I don't think we ought to have two classes of
    long-term residents. I even support a pathway to citizenship.
    But I do think it ought to be earned.
        And let me ask you about someone with two DUI convictions.
    Do you think that they have earned citizenship? Or do you think
    we ought to allow them to stay in our country?
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Well, if we are talking about the
    Senate immigration bill, which I think was referenced earlier
    as allowing a number of the very criminal offenses that were
    described here, as allowing those people to earn citizenship,
    that is not the case. And we wouldn't agree with that. I think
    that some----
        Mr. Bachus. If someone has two DUI convictions, would you
    agree that they do endanger public welfare and safety and the
    lives of not only our citizens, but of other undocumented
    people in our country?
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I think that offenses that endanger
    the public safety and national security need to be taken into
    account.
        Mr. Bachus. Do you think a DUI, do you think that's a very
    dangerous----
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. That is part of the legislation
    that we are supporting in the Senate bill.
        Mr. Bachus. So if someone with two DUI convictions, they
    could be----
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I believe that is in the current
    legislation. Is that correct?
        Ms. Tumlin. I would say the following. What I would support
    is that for each applicant, that their individual
    circumstances, including the records, are taken seriously and
    looked at.
        Mr. Bachus. Yeah. I really think that someone that's a
    guest in our country that commits two DUIs. Because a DUI is an
    indication that they are acting terribly irresponsible. And I
    don't think that's earning citizenship in any way.
        What about a gang member of a gang that uses violence?
        Ms. Tumlin. So again, what's in the Senate bill right now
    is that individuals who are gang members are excluded from that
    bill, if that's proven. But again, I do want to be very clear
    that one thing we are concerned about is suspicion, and
    particularly when you judge someone as in a gang based on
    suspicion of a tattoo or skin color.
        Mr. Bachus. I agree with that. But when it comes to
    violence--and I consider DUI as a violent crime. I mean it
    certainly can lead to some tremendous violence. And I think
    that advocates of a DUI bill are going to have to think about
    raising the bar, because when you raise it you may eliminate
    100,000 or 50,000 people in our country. But you may, those
    that are behaving in a responsible manner, you are not
    excluding.
        And let me ask you this. In Alabama--and I ran in an
    election when 70 percent of the people in my district supported
    the immigration bill and 61 percent of the people in my
    district strongly supported it, and I won almost 70 percent of
    the vote. Didn't lose one voting place. So they gave me a pass.
        But I didn't oppose the fact that--and don't think that we
    can enforce a comprehensive immigration bill without the
    assistance of local law enforcement. And I don't see how you
    enforce our criminal laws and our statutes or any of our laws
    once they become laws without assistance of local and State law
    enforcement. That's the only enforcement we have in most of the
    counties I represent. We may have two ICE agents.
        And I hear you say you want it comprehensive, you want it
    consistent. But do you not recognize that local law enforcement
    is going to have to have a major role in enforcing all our
    laws?
        Ms. Tumlin. So there is a difference between assisting and
    leading. And with respect to law enforcement, I would say the
    following, and it's really grounded on what law enforcement
    officers have been telling us for the last several years and
    even before that about what they need to do their own jobs.
    First and foremost, law enforcement officials, including the
    scores of law enforcement officials who wrote an amicus brief
    to the Supreme Court last year regarding Arizona's law, said we
    need local control. We know best how to make decisions about
    how to police our communities and keep them safe. And in
    addition, they have said, when people are afraid to talk to us,
    when members of immigrant communities will not come forward and
    report crimes to us, we cannot do our job.
        It is astounding what is in the most recent report that's
    cited in our written testimony about what Latinos say about
    coming forward to law enforcement. A whopping 28 percent of
    U.S.-born Latinos, U.S.-born, U.S. citizens----
        Mr. Bachus. I understand. But I guess I am just saying, can
    we have enforcement and interior enforcement, which I think we
    all agree we have to have, without local law enforcement being
    involved and empowered?
        Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I would now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Conyers.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is a very unusual situation we have here today. We
    never have eight witnesses at a time. This sets some kind of a
    record. But we welcome you all anyway.
        And I want to ask about how this bill, Attorney Tumlin, is
    even more stringent and maybe unconstitutional than a bill
    passed 7 years ago called H.R. 4437. And it essentially tried
    to do some of the things, but not all the things that are
    present here in H.R. 2278, because we're doing more than
    strengthening enforcement. We're turning over the
    responsibilities normally of the homeland security and the
    immigration authorities to local police.
        So this isn't a matter of taking powers away from local
    enforcement. This is a matter of having them begin to become
    immigration agents. What are your thoughts in that regard,
    ma'am?
        Ms. Tumlin. Thank you Ranking Member Conyers. Absolutely,
    this bill, the SAFE Act, goes well beyond what we saw in H.R.
    4437. It does so in three ways, at least.
        First, as you indicated, it absolutely surrenders control
    to State and local jurisdictions in terms of enforcing
    immigration law. It allows them to create their own crimes and
    civil penalties to arrest, detain, and investigate individuals
    for those. And it mandates the use of Federal resources and
    Federal dollars to detain individuals on those charges. So the
    State and localities aside, they have got the crimes and the
    Federal Government is going to pay when they lock them up.
        Second, it mandates detention of noncitizens after the
    expiration of their underlying State or local charge without
    probable cause, and it even does so indefinitely without a time
    limit for anyone the State or local jurisdiction believes might
    be removable from the United States. It does that without
    providing training, oversight, and control. It allows local
    officers who are not versed in the complexities of immigration
    law to make those decisions and it would have severe
    consequences.
        And last, as the Ranking Member already alluded to, it will
    radically increase the number of individuals who are
    criminalized for nothing more than being present in this
    country without status, no matter if they have been here 5, 10,
    15, 25 years.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
        Ms. De Castro from the National Council of La Raza, did you
    want to add anything to this discussion that I just had with
    the Attorney Tumlin?
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. I think the main thing here--and I
    do agree with Mr. Krantz that the either/or approach doesn't
    work. We need to find a balance. We may disagree on what the
    balance is. But I think that having laws that basically put a
    bull's-eye on the forehead of America's 52 million Latinos is
    probably not striking the right balance. I think we can do
    better than that. We need laws that, indeed, are going to
    remove the types of criminals that are being talked about,
    because I do agree, particularly in the immigrant community,
    those criminals prey upon that vulnerable population first and
    foremost. We are not advocating for them to remain there or
    elsewhere.
        But again, it is about balance. And the big issue here is
    that we have seen now through several court proceedings,
    findings, and lawsuits, that unfortunately this type of
    delegation of law to the State and local level is, indeed,
    leading to racial profiling.
        And there are disagreements, to be fair, in the law
    enforcement community. Obviously we have heard from some of
    those testifying here that they would like to go full throttle
    on those policies. But that should not obscure the fact that
    there are very important voices in the law enforcement
    community that either don't support those policies or are at
    best conflicted because the effect that they have on community
    policing strategies and their ability to fulfill their first
    and foremost mission, which is the public safety and to first
    do no harm.
        And the last thing I would add is, if I may, Congressman
    Bachus, congratulations on your landslide election. I don't
    think that your voters gave you a pass. I think that they, as
    the majority of Americans--and there is a poll of 29 States
    that came out today--actually support a comprehensive solution
    and want this problem dealt with. So I don't think they gave
    you a pass.
        Mr. Conyers. You know, I thank you both very much. And I
    just want to observe that this is going to cost a lot of money
    if this were actually put into practice. And most States and
    localities can't afford it. And I can attest that the Federal
    budget can't take it much either.
        But thank you very much for your opinions and being with us
    today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Tumlin, I was going to ask you initially to reconcile
    for me your support of city council members practicing
    sanctuary law, but your lack of confidence in city police
    officers to actually enforce Federal law. But I'm going to go
    another direction.
        To my friends who are in local DA's offices and local law
    enforcement, I want you to pay close attention to what you've
    heard so far. You are good enough to investigate homicide
    cases. You're just not good enough for us to trust you with
    immigration cases. You're good enough for drug cases, even
    though that area has been occupied by Title 21 for decades.
    You're good enough to help with drug cases. You're just not
    good enough to help with immigration cases.
        You're good enough to help, despite the fact that the
    Second Amendment clearly occupies that field if you want to
    talk about preemption, it clearly occupies the field, Title 18,
    922(g), 924(c), all the Federal firearms statutes. You're good
    enough to have your own State firearms laws. You're just not
    good enough to help out with the immigration laws. And even
    though the Federal system has the Hobbs Act to take care of
    armed robberies, it's okay for States also to have armed
    robbery statutes. We don't just tell the Feds, you're the only
    ones who can occupy drugs and firearms and robbery cases.
        So I'll tell you this: I've worked with State prosecutors
    and Federal prosecutors and State and local law enforcement. If
    you're good enough to do homicide cases, then I trust you to do
    immigration cases. And I think it's a shame that anybody
    doesn't. If you're good enough to investigate the most serious
    crimes in this country, but yet we're worried about you
    understanding the complexities of immigration law?
        I've heard a lot about respect for the rule of law. I'm
    interested in respect for the rule of law. I'm much more
    interested in adherence to the rule of law. Because nothing
    undercuts the fabric of this Republic like people picking and
    choosing which laws they're going to enforce, when they're
    going to do it, when it's politically opportune for them not to
    do it.
        So I'm happy to talk preemption. I am happy to talk stare
    decisis. I'm happy to talk Supremacy Clause. I'm happy to talk
    enumerated powers or any other legal concept you want to talk
    about. What I will not do is let State and local prosecutors
    and State and local law enforcement be disparaged and say we
    trust you to handle homicide cases but we're not going to trust
    to you handle immigration cases. That I will not do.
        I started this debate months ago saying I am happy to find
    a synthesis between the respect for the rule of law that
    defines us as a Republic and the humanity that defines us as a
    people. I am happy to do that, to search for that synthesis.
    But I am not going to pursue the humanity at the expense of the
    respect for the rule of law. I'm not going to do it.
        Sheriff, do you think you're capable of enforcing
    immigration laws if your jurisdiction--if your jurisdiction
    decides to pass ones that are not inconsistent with, but
    consistent with Federal law, do you think you're capable of
    doing that?
        Sheriff Babeu. Absolutely Mr. Chairman. And this is to your
    point. And I appreciate your remarks because it quite frankly
    was offensive to hear that. I have close to 700 men and women
    that work in our sheriff's office who risk their own personal
    safety, their lives, and oftentimes for those who are illegal.
    We do not differentiate. And we have several hundred of my
    staff who are Hispanic. What are we saying about them?
        And the fact that we swear an oath to preserve, protect,
    and defend our Constitution, we put our lives on the line for
    all people. And the fact that we're in this conversation, this
    debate today, you trust me, you trust every law enforcement
    officer in America to deal with not only the most complex
    issues for U.S. citizens, that we can make life-and-death
    decisions, the only profession in our land that can take
    another person's life, and yet we're saying here we're not
    smart enough to be able to ask questions and to call out to
    help for ICE, which is what we did. We're not asking for
    something that we didn't have. I only had 13 of my deputies and
    detention officers who are 287(g) certified.
        I've got a full plate in Pinal County. I don't want to do
    ICE's job. But we should be able to talk together and work in
    concert together to solve an issue. How did we get to this
    point that the cops are now the bad guys? And it's because that
    we, as a country--Republicans and Democrats--have failed to
    address this issue and to solve it.
        So we're put in the cross hairs and are disparaged and that
    of course our motivation, and this is one of the casualties of
    this, the undermining not just of the rule of law, but those
    who preserve and protect on a daily basis every person's
    safety.
        Mr. Gowdy. Well, Sheriff, I appreciate it. My time is up.
    If we have a second round, I will get the district attorney to
    help me understand how city council members in certain cities
    are smart enough to ignore Federal law and create sanctuary
    cities, but these guys aren't smart enough to enforce Federal
    law. We will get to that in the second round.
        With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from California
    Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I wonder if I might allow Mr. Gutierrez to
    lead ahead of me.
        Mr. Gowdy. Certainly. I recognize the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you. First of all, I think this debate
    has gone really in the wrong direction. It's almost as though
    this side of the aisle now is against the cops and against
    enforcement and is for murderers and criminals and drunk
    drivers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
        When we introduced comprehensive immigration reform, the
    first 400 pages of the 600 pages were enforcement, enforcement,
    and enforcement. More police officers. More ICE agents. And I
    think it's regrettable that we have a debate in which somehow
    this side of the aisle is weak, this side of the aisle is
    somehow unsympathetic to the murdering of children. We are not.
    We think those despicable foreigners that come to this country
    should be the first in line to get kicked out of this country
    after they've paid the price in our prisons and our penal
    system.
        But to somehow, all of a sudden--because this is the debate
    that we're having--that all the 11 million undocumented workers
    in this country get reduced to drug dealers, to gang members,
    to part of cartels? That is just not the truth.
        And so as I hear this debate today, I say to myself, what
    happened to the eight, nine hearings we had in which people
    came forward to testify and they said, we can make a decision.
    Are our crops going to be picked in foreign countries by
    foreign hands or are they going to be picked here in the United
    States by foreign hands? Either way, that backbreaking dirty,
    filthy work is probably not going to be done by us.
        So there is a reality in America. We had debates and we had
    witnesses come forward to say, let's fix the broken immigration
    system because they're not all gangbangers. They're not all
    drug dealers. They're not all murderers. They're not all people
    who are racing down the streets killing people while they're
    drunk. You know who they are? They're the moms and dads of over
    4 million American citizen children caught up in a broken
    immigration system.
        And what do we really want? Do we want you, Sheriff, do we
    want the law enforcement agencies going after the moms and dads
    who are waking up every day to provide for their American
    citizen children? I say no. But here is what's happening. There
    was just a study, 41 percent of Latinos said they are less
    likely to speak. And those are the ones that are legally in the
    United States.
        It is as though the undocumented workers in this country
    are somehow a pariah on which all of the evils of our society
    and all of the ills of our society should be thrust upon. That
    just is not the case. And to say to hundreds of thousands of
    young children, one of the things that I always consider is I
    certainly hope that my children are never judged by my actions.
    My children should be judged by their own actions. And children
    brought here as children to this country should not be judged
    by the actions of their parents. They were not knowingly doing
    anything. They did not have the will to make a decision to come
    here or not.
        They have come out of the shadows. I mean everybody says,
    oh, well, those dreamers. You know what they did? They applied.
    They said, I'm here out of status, government. And you know
    what the government? They didn't send them back a letter that
    said, welcome, come on down, happy to have you here. You know
    what they sent them a letter? They said, come on down and give
    me your fingerprints and prove to me that you are not a
    gangbanger, a drug dealer, or anybody involved in criminality.
    And if you can do that, I am going to allow you to work while
    we fix our broken immigration system.
        So all I am trying to say here this afternoon is, we
    started so well. January, February, March, April, May. Part of
    June. Let's finish it. Let's not demonize. Let's not pick
    winners and losers. Let's just say, we've got a broken
    immigration system. Because I am going to tell you something
    and I've told Mr. Gowdy this. I'm for E-Verify so that every
    American gets first crack at any job in America. I'm for
    whatever you need on the border if you think you need more of
    that. I'm for more enforcement. But I'm also for humanity. I'm
    also for treating people like human beings.
        So I don't have questions for you. I simply have a plea.
    Can't we just move this agenda forward? You can get what you
    want because I'm ready to sit down and give enforcement and not
    question you. All I'm trying to say is, it takes 218 votes. So
    what are we going to do, have this fight again? We've seen this
    before. And you know what you have got? You have got millions
    of people when they introduced almost this identical
    legislation and they came to the streets and they protested and
    they elected people like me and others to say, okay, let's fix
    it.
        I have gone too far, Mr. Chairman. I want to say, I joined
    this Committee after 20 years of service on Financial Services
    to fix this problem. I'm not for criminal. But I am for decent,
    humane treatment of millions of workers--not foreigners that
    came here to do damage, but immigrants who came here to
    contribute.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity.
        Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Coble.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It's good to have all of you with us today.
        Sheriff Page, as a sheriff of a State that does not share a
    border with Mexico, give us an idea of the impact that stricter
    immigration enforcement would have on the area that you serve.
        Sheriff Page. Well, it's kind of related like to my jail
    situation. I have a responsibility in my county to know who's
    coming in and out of my facility, as immigration should have
    the ability to be able to track who is coming into and leaving
    from our country. And the problem is right now, when I talk to
    the ICE agents from across the country and I talk to their
    representatives, they're not getting the support from the
    people that should be giving them support in the government to
    let them do their jobs. Free their hands and let them to do the
    work they need to do.
        What was discussed earlier today, I'm sure that not every
    sheriff in America or every police chief in America wants to do
    immigration enforcement. But I do 100 percent support my
    Federal, State, and local agencies when we come together in
    task force and different groups to work together as a force
    multiplier. I just want to be able to back up ICE when they
    need help and they need my support. And the same thing with the
    Border Patrol when they need that request if I lived on the
    border.
        So I feel, Mr. Coble, that if we support our immigration
    officers in the State, we can do a better job identifying that
    percentage. And I know that all 11.5 million people that are
    illegal in this country are not criminals. But we want to
    identify those criminals and get them off the street and put
    them in prison and return them to wherever they came from and
    get them out of this country. And that is an obligation I have.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Sheriff.
        Sheriff Page. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coble. Sheriff, I think I know the answer to this
    question. But what good purpose will be served when we deport
    the criminal aliens? I presume they are probably in charge of
    the local gangs. Is that a valid conclusion?
        Sheriff Page. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Coble. I said when we deport alien criminals, how is
    that helpful with you as the high sheriff of the county?
        Sheriff Page. As a sheriff, when we can remove criminal
    elements from our community, that does help to improve our
    communities by getting the criminals out. And I won't get too
    heavy into the border, but again we also have to pay attention
    to stopping that flow back and forth because right now, like I
    said, we're picking up individuals that are tied in with the
    Mexican drug cartel in North Carolina, in my community, and
    it's not just my community in North Carolina either. And we are
    concerned when we see that activity traveling 2 to 3 days from
    across the border into our communities.
        And without a good, defined, secure strategy and tactics on
    our border to secure it, lock it down, we are going to continue
    having these problems. Even if we work toward fixing the
    immigration system, we've got to fix our borders, because if we
    don't secure our borders in America, every sheriff in America
    will be a border sheriff.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Sheriff.
        My friend from Arizona, in your written testimony you
    discussed at length the need for a secured border. While a
    secured border is vital to ensure that people do not come here
    in violation of the law, of what importance is robust interior
    enforcement, that is away from the border?
        Sheriff Babeu. Well, sir, I mean, I think it's critical
    because for the first part of it is that almost half of the
    people that are here illegally now didn't cross our border.
    They didn't make an illegal entry. They would have never come
    in contact with U.S. Border Patrol. They came here on visas and
    they overstayed those visas. They came here legally. So whose
    job is it to enforce those laws, to police those individuals?
        Obviously, we know as well that a lot of the individuals
    that have come to our country engaged in terrorist activities
    have not crossed our borders. They have come here on visas.
    They have come here legally. We need to be aggressively
    enforcing our laws with regard to those individuals.
        But also I think what we've heard a little bit here today
    about is the criminal element. There is definitely a
    disproportionate number of criminals that's crossing our
    borders and coming into the country. And again, that's our
    responsibility. The jails are full of criminal aliens. And
    that's not to say that every person here of the 11 million is a
    criminal, but there are definitely extremely large numbers of
    criminals coming into our country.
        With our limited resources that we have, according to the
    Obama administration's numbers, we deported 225,000 convicted
    criminals last year, 225,000. That's half the population of the
    State of Wyoming. That's, you know, bigger than the Marine
    Corps when I was in it. That's a lot of people. And we're not
    even scratching a dent in this criminal alien problem, as well
    as the gangs.
        So our involvement, our enforcement is critical, critical,
    critical to community and public safety as well as national
    security.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you all again. I want to beat that before
    that red light illuminates. Alamance County has been mentioned
    twice today. It is my belief that that matter has still not
    been resolved. But we can talk about that at a later date. In
    any event, good to have all of you aboard.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from
    California, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to
    ask unanimous consent to include in the record eight letters in
    opposition to this bill.
        Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. And I would also like to ask, I want to make
    sure that--I think I was precise but I want to double back and
    make sure--because I think what I said in my opening statement
    was that the Justice Department had concluded that the Alamance
    County sheriff and his deputies had engaged in discrimination.
    And I would ask unanimous consent to put into the record the
    findings from the Department of Justice that the Sheriff's
    Department did engage in intentional discrimination. And my
    colleague Mr. Coble is correct. They also filed a lawsuit which
    is still pending. So we're both right. And I would ask
    unanimous consent that both the complaint and the findings be
    made a part of this record.
        Mr. Gowdy. I never doubted for a moment you were both
    right. And without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________

                                   __________
        Ms. Lofgren. Great.
        You know, I just want to say that certainly I have a very
    close relationship with the prosecutors in my county. I have
    tremendous respect for them, as well as the law enforcement
    agents. And I think it's incorrect to suggest that because
    immigration law is enormously complex and maybe not an area of
    expertise for my friends in the DA's office, that somehow that
    insults them. As a matter of fact, I think my friend the DA in
    Santa Clara County would agree that he is not an expert on
    immigration law.
        So I guess I'd like to ask you this, Sheriff Babeu. You
    took offense, and I meant none. Let me ask you this question.
    If you found someone who was born on November 15, 1986, whose
    mother was a United States citizen, would that person have
    derivative citizenship if she had been in the U.S. for 3 years
    prior to that child's birth?
        Sheriff Babeu. Through the chair, Ms. Lofgren, quite
    frankly right now we don't do anything in regards to that. And
    if we have 13 deputies who get enhanced training, they actually
    come back east, and those would be the only deputies that
    would.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, I'll tell you, the manual for local law
    enforcement is about that thick----
        Sheriff Babeu. Sure.
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. And the immigration code is this
    thick.
        Sheriff Babeu. Certainly.
        Ms. Lofgren. And I'm not insulting you. I value what law
    enforcement does. I used to teach immigration law, and there
    are many nuances that are important and critical on whether
    someone is a U.S. citizen or not. In fact, you have to be 5
    years in the U.S. prior to the child's birth, at least 2 of
    which have to have been before the age of 14. And it can
    include presence in not only the United States, but also
    possessions. And those are things about whether you're an
    American, not an illegal person.
        Sheriff Babeu. And I can answer that. We actually have
    numerous situations because when, through policy, through ICE,
    and when the President came out and said anybody who has been
    here for 5 uninterrupted years or longer, they shall be allowed
    to stay here. So what we did, our deputies----
        Ms. Lofgren. If I can interrupt, because I want to ask one
    other question. It's not about whether you can follow the
    policy that the President outlines or that ICE outlines. I
    don't doubt that.
        Sheriff Babeu. Sure.
        Ms. Lofgren. And I also don't doubt that you're good at
    arresting people who are drug dealers. I mean, great. I want
    you to do that.
        Sheriff Babeu. With that situation, we would do nothing. We
    wouldn't even ask the question.
        Ms. Lofgren. But there have been--and this goes to my
    question I guess, Ms. Martinez. You, in your written testimony,
    outlined instances where American citizens have been deported,
    which is a travesty. I wonder if you can--you didn't have an
    opportunity to go through that. But we have come across
    numerous instances where mistakes have been made, including in
    LA County, where American citizens were apprehended and then
    deported, even though they were Americans from birth. Can you
    address that issue?
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Thank you. Indeed, there are
    several of those cases, particularly that were documented in
    the recent findings about Maricopa County, in terms of the
    discrimination. And in terms of people being deported, there's
    a variety of reasons. Somebody doesn't answer the right
    question and they end up being categorized as somebody who is
    deportable. It has happened to U.S. citizens. I know it is
    extremely hard to fathom. But it does happen.
        And part of the reason is that the toxic nature of our
    immigration debate--and that's why we are desperately in need
    of fixing this--has created an environment where there's a lot
    of people--American citizens and legal permanent residents--who
    are immediately categorized as ``illegal.''
        Ms. Lofgren. I want to be respectful of the time. Let me
    just say thank you.
        And to the parents who have lost children, what happened to
    you shouldn't happen to anyone. That is not an argument.
    Certainly we don't want people who have done nothing wrong to
    be stigmatized. But our hearts go out to you. And I think there
    is really unanimity about going after the criminals here in
    this room.
        I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentlelady from California.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, former United States Attorney Mr. Marino.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman. I wish my friend Luis
    Gutierrez was here because I agree with him on many of the
    issues. I don't agree with him where he categorizes this side
    by saying we want all the Hispanics and illegals just moved out
    of the country for no reason at all. We're talking about the
    people who caused the death of these--this father and this
    mother here that should be moved out of this country. And given
    the fact that they had criminal records, if they were sent and
    deported back or put in jail when they were supposed to be and
    not released, their children would be alive today. And so----
        Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?
        I agree with you. But if there were trials--and in one
    case, there may have been, and in another there wasn't--that's
    for the court to determine.
        Mr. Marino. Reclaiming my time, sir.
        As a prosecutor, I know what the court should determine.
    But given the circumstances and based on immigration law, those
    individuals should have been at least detained and sent back
    eventually. So I am not saying they didn't deserve a trial.
    That's not the issue.
        Ms. Martinez, you very eloquently spoke to the fact of what
    we need to do. But I think you did not speak clearly enough on
    it's going to take enforcement. You did say that a large
    majority of Americans want immigration fixed. I want it fixed
    also. And I know we're not going to send back 11 million
    people, and I'll be standing at the front of the line to argue
    that.
        But the question wasn't asked that way. If you would ask
    those people, should they all get amnesty, you would see those
    numbers significantly decrease, because I'm not only hearing it
    from my district in Pennsylvania, I am hearing it from people
    across the country. We need to deal with this but not total
    amnesty.
        And there was a statement about enforcement levels of this
    Administration have increased. That's not true. I'm
    disappointed in this Administration and I'm also disappointed
    in the Bush administration for not addressing this issue in the
    previous Administration, in the Bush administration. What ICE
    has been doing, what Homeland has been doing is those
    individuals sent back at the border are considered to be
    individuals that were here and sent back and that's how they
    inflate the numbers.
        Ms. Tumlin, I am offended by your statement. I am offended
    because, as the Chairman said and my friend, my assistant U.S.
    attorney, when I was a district attorney in Lycoming County,
    Pennsylvania, for 10 years, the Federal Government, ICE, Secret
    Service, FBI, came to local law enforcement and said, help us
    solve these crimes, no matter if the criminals were dealing
    drugs or no matter if they were illegals. Because I agree with
    the statement that was made, that all law enforcement is
    grassroots.
        And then when I became a United States attorney, I went
    right back and I was the United States attorney for 7 years, I
    went right back to those district attorneys and those sheriffs
    and those police officers and said, help me enforce the laws of
    the Federal Government. And it was very helpful because most of
    my cases were solved by those people there.
        And I want to ask you a question. You certainly pick apart
    law enforcement in your statement. You say that locals should
    not be--have the authority and the power to do what they have
    been doing over the past several years except when this
    Administration stopped it. That's the backbone of law
    enforcement. The Federal Government wouldn't operate without
    these individuals. And I take insult to that.
        And as far as the individual driving mom to the store and
    getting milk and should that person be prosecuted, if they're
    here illegally, if they know he shouldn't be driving and he
    doesn't have a license, it's a violation of the law. So why
    would you say that these people aren't qualified when the
    Federal Government relies on them to enforce the law?
        Ms. Tumlin. I appreciate the Representative's question. And
    I think as a prosecutor, of course you know that in that
    example the prosecution that the State of Georgia was talking
    about was not for driving without a license. They were talking
    about the prosecution under their own law for harboring and in
    this case for transporting an undocumented immigrant.
        Mr. Marino. It's still illegal. So you do not think that is
    a good law. But the law that they're enforcing for immigration
    or should be enforcing is a bad law?
        And let me ask you this question. I commend you for your
    cause and what you do and for the work that you are trying to
    do for people that are here illegally. But have you ever taken
    the time to talk to people like Ms. Durden and Mr. Shaw about
    what they lost, about how their rights were violated, about
    their child, their constitutional rights were violated, and
    they're not here today to enjoy their children? You seem to be
    jumping on the fact that we want to prosecute every illegal
    immigrant that's here and send them right back regardless of
    any cause.
        Let me tell you something. That's not the case. I've been a
    prosecutor for most of my life and the rule of law is the rule
    of law. And you can't sit there and pick and choose what laws
    you want enforced and who should enforce them.
        Ms. Tumlin. So what I'd like to say briefly, if I may, to
    the question, because it is--I think it is an incendiary
    remark. And what I would say about the absolutely unspeakable
    tragedies that we heard about today----
        Mr. Marino. Well, let me interrupt you, because I didn't
    hear you mention one word about that in your opening statement.
    Ms. Martinez did, but I didn't hear you do it in your opening
    statement. And you're doing it because I'm bringing it up now.
    And I think you need to step back, reevaluate your cause, and
    take into consideration the victims and what these people are
    going through.
        And I yield back my time. I see it has expired.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
    Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mixed feelings. Mr. Shaw, Ms. Durden, I am sorry for your
    loss. It was 30 years ago--excuse me, 40 years ago, on May 29,
    1973, that my sister was killed, murdered by a Black guy. And I
    chose not to be angry or unforgiving about that to this day.
    And I just wonder why is it that you two have been brought here
    to share your pain about your loss with the Nation? Were you
    called because we wanted to arouse passions and prejudices
    against people from--or against illegal immigrants? Is it
    because we wanted people to think that all illegal immigrants
    are from Mexico, they're Hispanic? Is it because we wanted
    everyone to feel that all immigrants, illegal immigrants, are
    criminals or drunk drivers or somehow the scourge of our
    community? Is it that why you all were brought here? I can't
    think of any reason why other than that, that you all are here.
        Ms. Durden. Can I answer that?
        Mr. Johnson. And I think that this kind of passion and this
    kind of emotion really is ill placed for our consideration of
    legislation before us. And I appreciate the law enforcement
    personnel who put their lives on the line every day. They are
    asked to do more increasingly with less, and they are
    frustrated because they have a job to do. And if the Federal
    Government can't get its act together, which it has not done,
    then it falls on local law enforcement. And it falls on local
    law enforcement prosecution also, it falls on our jails, the
    citizens are paying for that.
        But there is a deeper reason behind this that leads to our
    frustration with each other, and we end up pointing fingers at
    each other while there is money making going on. That money
    making, ladies and gentlemen, is from the profits of
    incarceration. And so illegal immigrants can be a source of
    revenue for companies like private prison, for-profit private
    prison companies, skyrocketing stock value on Wall Streets.
    Corrections Corporation of America CEO Damon Hininger, back in
    the week of February 20th on a conference call to investors,
    assuring them that incarceration rates will remain high and
    immigration detention will be a strong source of business for
    the foreseeable future.
        Do you all understand how public policy can result in
    dollars in the pocket of business interest? And so what's
    happening is we have turned our attention away from those who
    are making the money and we're blaming each other for
    everything that ails us. And it's really time for this game to
    end. The private prison corporations are members of ALEC, the
    American Legislative Exchange Council, that drafts bills State
    by State and introduced here in the Federal Government, that
    result in these kinds of growth opportunities for business.
    It's wrong, its immoral, and it's hurting, it's killing of
    America.
        Mr. Goodlatte [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has
    expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
    Labrador, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if before I have
    my time, if Mr. Shaw and Ms. Durden can actually answer the
    question, because that's one of the most ridiculous
    presentations I have ever----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Labrador----
        Mr. Labrador. I'm sorry, but I think----
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Labrador, I'm not going to stoop to the
    posture of----
        Mr. Labrador. Your time has expired.
        Mr. Johnson. But you cannot come here and insult another
    Member. I think that's against the rules.
        Mr. Labrador. I just believe that if you just called them
    out for coming out here and you said that they were----
        Mr. Johnson. If you have a question that you want to ask
    them, that's fine.
        Mr. Labrador. You know, sir, I will do it sir in the way
    that I will to do it. But I just think it's insulting----
        Mr. Johnson. But don't get them to answer my question and
    you not have----
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlemen will both suspend.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. And you not use your time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlemen will both suspend.
        Mr. Shaw, Ms. Durden, if you care to respond to the last
    statement/question made by the gentleman from Georgia, we will
    allow to you do so.
        Mr. Johnson. And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I welcome their
    response, I just happened to run out of time. But because we
    are sticking to the time I don't want to give Mr. Labrador 2
    minutes of free time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. No, we're going to give Mr. Shaw and Ms.
    Durden the time, and then we'll go to Mr. Labrador. But----
        Mr. Johnson. Oh, okay, well, then, we can do it like that.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I thought you were completing a statement.
    Apparently you were completing a question. Either way, we'll
    let them comment on it.
        Mr. Johnson. That'll be fine.
        Ms. Durden. I would love to answer your question. We
    weren't brought here for any sympathy or anything. My reason
    for being here is to put a face to this. I don't think
    immigration talks about all the lady going to church and
    somebody says she looks like Hispanic so we're going to check
    her immigration status. It puts, I think, a face on it with my
    son that brought a lot of good things to the community he lived
    in. He took care of me, he took care of his friends and
    neighbors and everybody. And he was wiped out because the guy
    who killed him in 2008 wasn't deported, he wasn't deported
    after his first DUI or his second DUI, a career criminal.
        It's almost like if I sneak into a restaurant and I act a
    fool and they ask me to leave, oh, no. Or I just come back and
    they say, no, you're not allowed here anymore, we didn't invite
    you back here, you did something wrong, and then I go back and
    they say, well, okay you can stay until you tear up the place.
    And when it's all demolished we'll deal with you. That's how I
    feel.
        So for you to say that we were--you know, you questioned
    why we were brought here, to put a face to it. When I get
    married to a wonderful man that supported me, my son can't walk
    me down the aisle. I will never be a grandmother or a mother-
    in-law. So that's why I'm here.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Mr. Shaw, did you choose to say anything?
        Mr. Shaw. Yeah, basically I didn't like the way you did
    that myself, you know, because you're almost putting like no
    value on my son, because when you said your sister was killed
    by a Black man, like that made everything that we have to say
    null and void, because it was a Black man and like we're
    picking on Latinos.
        But what you have to understand is that our kids were here,
    they were living here, and they were murdered by someone
    illegally in the country. And I came here to let people know
    that I don't have to say that everybody here is 11 million
    people or more aren't criminals. I mean, I'm here to say that
    you have people here in the country illegally that are
    criminals. You have people that were brought here by no fault
    of their own. My son was murdered by someone that was brought
    here at 4 years old. And just because someone was brought here
    by no fault of their own you guys act like that gives them some
    sort of cart blanche to do whatever they want to, you know, and
    that's not fair.
        If you're here illegally from day one, you cross that
    border, everything else is out the door, it's illegal. And for
    you to act like if you come into our country it's not a crime,
    that's insulting to all Americans. And to say that I came here
    for sympathy, you know, I don't need sympathy. I think about my
    son 24 hours a day and I'm sure you feel the same about your
    sister. And for you to try to make it seem like I was just
    brought here like some puppet to make people cry or make people
    feel sorry for me, that's not fair, that's not fair, because we
    love our kids.
        Like she was saying, my son wasn't bothering anybody. He
    was walking down the street, coming home from the mall. I'm
    sure like your kids probably do, go to the mall and enjoy life.
    My son wasn't bothering anybody, he was playing football, he
    wasn't into gangs, no gang databases, he'd never been arrested,
    never been suspended from school. He was three times MVP,
    player of the year, he was running track, he was getting ready
    to get a shot at going to the Olympics.
        You know, so for you to make it seem like our families
    aren't important and we're brought here like they brought us
    out here like we're puppets, you know, to make fun of us,
    that's insulting to me, you know. If you had a nonchalant
    attitude it's not fair.
        The same way with the attorney and the other lady on the
    end, same way, they never talk about the crimes and the
    criminals and the cemeteries full of dead people, you know. And
    they act like just because they're here to work, that that's
    just--that's some kind of honor. That's not an honor, you broke
    the law to come into this country. You brought your kids over
    here. That's equivalent to human trafficking. You brought an
    infant that had no control what they were doing to a foreign
    country illegally and then raised him like that, and then you
    want us to feel like it's our fault because their mom and dad
    are just here to work. Where is the criminal, where is the
    criminality for the----
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Shaw.
        Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if I might offer my apology to
    both witnesses if I offended you. It was not my intent to do
    that. And certainly I'm a Black guy. And I think the point that
    I was making with that was that I'm not turned against all
    Black people, thinking that all Black people are criminals. And
    I said that to demonstrate that point.
        But once again, I am deeply apologetic if I offended either
    one of you. And I thank you for taking your time and spending
    your resources at the call of this Committee to come here and
    testify. That's not your fault that you were called here. And
    so I appreciate both of you. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I just want to first thank Mr.
    Shaw and Ms. Durden for being here. I have five kids, and I
    can't even imagine what you have gone through.
        I want to thank Ms. Martinez for your words. And I think
    you and I--and, I'm sorry, I'm a little emotional because this
    is an important issue for America. And when I see the tragedy
    that happened to your family, but I also think about a broken
    immigration system that we're trying to fix, and for us to
    think that we cannot reach a comprehensive approach to
    immigration reform without local law enforcement participating
    in it, I think it's a mistake.
        And I know you and I, Ms. Martinez, want to reach a common
    agreement on what we need to do, and I think we have the same
    goal. But my problem is that I think it's unrealistic for you
    and Ms. Tumlin to think that we're going to have any kind of
    immigration reform without having some sort of participation
    from the local law enforcement, without giving Mr. Crane the
    tools that he needs to do his job.
        I have to be honest. I practiced immigration law for 15
    years, Mr. Crane, and I had no idea that you only had 5,000
    agents dealing with 40 million people. I mean, think about
    that. If you think about 5,000 agents dealing with 40 million
    people, that's why we have the problem that we have today,
    that's why we have so many people in the United States
    illegally.
        And for somebody to sit here and say that you cannot do
    your job, Mr. Babeu, Paul, my friend, that you cannot do your
    job because you don't understand immigration law, I found Ms.
    Lofgren's questioning a little bit interesting. I practiced law
    for 15 years. Without looking at my book, I don't think I could
    have answered the question that she asked you because it's been
    3 years since I've practiced immigration law and I don't
    remember the answer. But I think you would have been able to
    train your deputies and the people in your office to actually
    work on this issue.
        And I also believe that if you would have arrested a young
    man who claimed citizenship, I know you well enough that I
    think you would have said, let's get an attorney who represents
    you so we can determine if you are a U.S. citizen or not. I
    know, I'm speaking for you, but can you answer that question.
        Sheriff Babeu. Yes. Through the Chair and Mr. Labrador,
    likely that scenario would never play out. I can't even think
    of a time that we would proceed that far. We would call ICE. We
    have 500 Border Patrol agents assigned in our county. And the
    times that the only contact we would have is if there was
    probable cause and there was some reason why we in law
    enforcement are there speaking with somebody and then that
    issue came up. We're required under Arizona law to ask that
    question if we have a reasonable suspicion, not because of the
    color of their skin, not because of how they talk or how they
    sound.
        And when we get to that point, that's where, if it even is
    an issue, we use a lifeline, we call ICE. ICE gives us
    direction. And the direction, in answer to the question
    earlier, the direction that we've been given is that person
    says they've been here 5 years, treat them as any other
    citizen, and that's the end of business for us. We deal with
    what we have to deal with, whether it's a citation or contact
    or have a good day. That's it, that's what we're doing.
        Mr. Labrador. Mr. Crane, you're trying to do a job to
    protect our Nation, and I think a lot of the job that you do is
    trying to protect us not just from people that are here
    illegally, but from drug trafficking, from all these other
    different things. Why do you think that this bill would
    actually strengthen your ability to actually do your job?
        Mr. Crane. Well, the first it does is it gives us some
    people to do the job with. I mean, that's probably the most
    important thing. I mean, one of the things that we're supposed
    to be doing is working every jail in the country, every prison
    in the country. We're supposed to be working with adult
    probation and parole to get convicted criminals that even slip
    through and go to prison and end up back on the street. I mean,
    we need the people do the job. You know, things like the
    detainers to make sure that our detainers are actually
    recognized by local law enforcement, that when put a detainer
    out there and it's ignored, then that bad guy ends up back on
    the street. So, I mean, there's just so many things about this
    bill that will help us do our jobs better.
        We have these two positions with two different arrest
    authorities. They have exactly the same training, but they have
    two different arrest authorities. So we end up in situations
    where we have two guys that need to make an arrest and they
    can't do it or they can't be assigned to a gang task force or
    something because they don't have those arrest authorities. It
    makes no sense. We're pulling our hair out, out in the field.
    We've asked ICE to make changes internally that would give
    those arrest authorities to all of our officers and they won't
    do it.
        So, I mean, there's a lot of things in this bill that will
    help us, and we're extremely appreciative to Congressman Gowdy
    and everyone that's worked with us to try to put some things in
    here that will get interior enforcement back on track.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
        Ms. Tumlin and Ms. Martinez, I want to get immigration
    reform passed. I think it would behoove you to actually work
    with the local law enforcement to try to figure out how we can
    actually figure out a way to make something like this work,
    because there is no way that in the House of Representatives an
    immigration reform bill passes without actually having the
    assurance that we're going to feel comfortable that what
    happened to Ms. Durden and Mr. Shaw will not happen again.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank the gentlemen. The time of the
    gentlemen has expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr.
    Pierluisi, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon. Let me start by restating my support for
    comprehensive immigration reform as the best course of action
    for Congress and America to seeking to fix our broken
    immigration system. We need a commonsense reform that will meet
    our Nation's needs in the 21st century and it must hold true to
    our American values.
        Real reform must take into account that the challenges that
    our immigration system faces today are multifaceted. They are
    not situations that can be dealt with through isolated
    initiatives that only address one aspect or another. That
    approach will not result in a better America and will squander
    the historic window of opportunity that presently exists while
    true bipartisan efforts are on their way in both the House and
    the Senate to find comprehensive solutions to these critical
    issues.
        Unfortunately, the enforcement-only approach offered by the
    SAFE Act falls short of accomplishing what America needs and
    wants us to accomplish, which is reform that works for our
    economy, that strengthens and secures our borders and our
    interior, that helps America attract needed talents and
    expertise, that allows undocumented immigrants already in
    America an opportunity to legalize their status and apply for
    citizenship, and that improves the efficiency and fairness of
    our legal immigration system to vastly reduce illegal
    immigration.
        While I understand and share the majority's desire to
    improve our Nation's security, I don't believe that the
    approach of the SAFE Act, which would combine the
    criminalization of undocumented immigrants with the delegation
    of authority to States and localities to enact and enforce
    their own immigration laws, would accomplish that goal. It is
    very risky, it's a very risky approach to a complicated problem
    and could cause great harm to communities everywhere by opening
    the doors to racial profiling, wrongful detention, and the
    criminalization of otherwise innocent behavior.
        And I, for one, I am very sorry for the pain that you have
    suffered, Mr. Shaw and Ms. Durden, I mean, and I tell you, I
    lost my own brother, he was a victim of a carjacking in Puerto
    Rico. So I know your pain and I relate to that.
        But we're seeking a comprehensive solution. We want to
    address all aspects of this, not only the pain of victims of
    any crime, including crimes committed by undocumented
    immigrants, but also the pain that millions of immigrants are
    suffering on a daily basis while being in the shadows because
    the system is not working.
        And of course I join Mr. Labrador in thinking and
    supporting that we have additional resources at the Federal
    level to enforce our immigration laws looking forward, but of
    course that makes all the sense in the world.
        Now, my question is for Ms. Clarissa Martinez-De-Castro
    from the National Council of La Raza. Ms. Castro, in your
    testimony you mentioned the case of Eduardo Caraballo, a U.S.
    citizen born in Puerto Rico, where I come from, and I also
    relate to this on a personal basis, who was arrested by Chicago
    police and held for more than 3 days in the custody of Federal
    agents on suspicion of being undocumented and was threatened
    with deportation because of his Mexican appearance.
        Do you believe that if States and localities are allowed to
    enact their own immigration laws, including civil and criminal
    penalties, and then given authority to enforce those laws,
    situations such as the one impacting U.S. citizens like Mr.
    Caraballo, which could impact me as well because of my accent
    and my Mexican appearance, will become more prevalent?
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Without a doubt. And it doesn't
    have anything to do with being disparaging to law enforcement,
    which I would like to clarify and speak directly to otherwise
    I'll get in trouble when I get home, because I have members of
    law enforcement in my family.
        What we did was actually cite facts and findings of
    investigations. There are bad apples everywhere. And I think
    that's why there are voices in the law enforcement community
    that are concerned about how these laws will interact with a
    number of things.
        The other thing that I would like to say is that there
    seems to be an inherent assumption somewhere here that there's
    false lines dividing the opinions in this table. And as long as
    we keep having that kind of conversation we're never going to
    get to the finish line here. To present my organization as
    somebody who doesn't think law enforcement has a role in this
    debate is simply false. What we believe, again, is that there
    needs to be a balance. And since there's been a lot of talk
    about public safety, let me just say that I do hope that when
    we talk about public safety and the public trust we are making
    sure that the Latino community, 75 percent of whom are U.S.
    citizens, are counted in that public trust, because oftentimes
    some of the provisions in this debate and the conversations
    that I hear could lead someone to believe that Latino citizens
    or legal permanent residents are not considered part of that
    American public or that their trust is irrelevant.
        And I do think here, like I said, there is too much tragedy
    in this issue. We can continue to talk on top of each other,
    around each other, misrepresent what we say. That's not going
    to help us. I am sure that Ms. Durden can identify with the
    tragedy of mothers who experience the loss of their sons
    because they were beaten to death just because somebody thought
    they were Mexican. Those tragedies are unacceptable. We need to
    address this problem head on.
        Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a district that has been very much affected by the
    discussions going on. I appreciate, Ms. Martinez, your
    comments.
        I take great offense at yours Ms. Tumlin. I'm not sure why
    you were here except to bring forth the point of making
    Georgia, of which I was part of that State legislature, and
    Arizona and others who attempted to deal with an issue in their
    State, who attempted to do so in a way that may or may not to
    your opinion or to others been right, and some part which was
    struck or put on hold by the court, but the vast majority of
    the law was upheld.
        I think you're right, Ms. Martinez, to draw lines are not
    good. But to walk into here and to take account officers, to
    take account me personally or others in the legislature who
    honestly tried to work through these issues, maybe not to your
    satisfaction, but did so at the request of those who voted for
    us, the same ones who sent me here, is not a good thing, it is
    not helpful.
        Because as one who is trying to work through this in a very
    conservative district, one in which we struggle deeply with
    these issues, in which there is a large Hispanic presence, that
    has made our district wonderful from a legal perspective and
    made a struggle from those who are there not legally. And these
    are issues that we have to deal with.
        But to simply categorize it in the way it came across, and
    I was watching, is not and will not be a helpful tool as we
    move forward, especially for those of us who are trying through
    sometimes great difficulty to find an answer for this. To
    others, from the gentleman from South Carolina and from Idaho
    and others across this table who have tried our best to look at
    this, to do so does not do any good.
        And especially from those, as I appreciate, Ms. Martinez,
    those with friends and family in law enforcement, my father was
    a State trooper for 31 years. And to see what he would go
    through and these others go through knowing that in my county,
    Hall County, was one of the first 287(g) counties.
        I have also practiced defense work, and I have my issues,
    and they hold accountable, we hold each other accountable. But
    to simply say the one argument that never came from me, from my
    sheriffs who I have great respect for, was that you were
    basically too dumb to enforce the law. It may be I disagree
    with you on how you made this stop or how you did this, but the
    fact that you were not bright enough to enforce it, no.
        And to have law school questions, I appreciate and I
    respect greatly my gentlelady from across the aisle from
    California. She can outrun me any day on most legal aspects.
    But that's a law school question. What these gentlemen all deal
    with is real side of the road kind of stuff.
        Mr. Crane, I want to focus on my issue in Georgia. Over 50
    illegal aliens were released by ICE under the guise of
    sequestration. In March I wrote to DHS and ICE and requested
    basic information about the releases. For example, I asked how
    many illegal aliens were released in Georgia and how many have
    criminal conviction and what are the specific crimes committed
    by illegal aliens released in Georgia. To date, I've never got
    an answer.
        I'm an original cosponsor of this legislation and strongly
    the needs it fixes to our current law in conjunction with other
    aspects that we need to deal with, with immigration, not just
    one, but a lot of others. However, as we provide for additional
    ICE detention officers and agents and prosecutors, shouldn't we
    also take steps to ensure that the national security and public
    safety goals of this bill aren't thwarted by what appears to be
    politically motivated releases of detained illegal aliens,
    including criminal aliens.
        Mr. Crane, I would like to hear from you on your thoughts
    on the seriousness of this situation and what we can do to
    prevent it from occurring in the future.
        Mr. Crane. Well, I think it's extremely serious, whether
    it's in Arizona or it's Georgia, when we're cutting people to
    the streets that are criminals. We're not letting law
    enforcement know about it, we're not letting them know why
    we're doing what we're doing, I mean, I think it's extremely
    dangerous. And I think there's definitely, I can tell you as an
    officer, those things never needed to happen. Sequestration or
    no sequestration, we have ways of trimming our numbers back
    without making mass releases like that.
        So it's completely unacceptable, it's a public safety
    threat. Everyone up at DHS should be held accountable for.
    Senator McCain himself, from the gang of eight, said Secretary
    Napolitano is responsible here, somebody needs to be
    disciplined for that, and I agree.
        The things that we have to do is we have to cut back
    whenever possible on the discretion of political appointees,
    being the Secretary of DHS or the Director of ICE, we have to
    cut back on their discretion. Congress has to codify this, they
    have to put it in writing how these folks are going to behave.
        Mr. Collins. Well, I think that is something that we have
    got to look at. And as my time goes out on this I just want to
    say, is someone looking for an answer here? Let's deal with
    answers, let's don't deal with disparaging comments.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank the gentleman.
        We have----
        Ms. Tumlin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask for the
    opportunity to respond.
        Mr. Goodlatte. If you would suspend for just a moment. We
    have votes on the floor that are 5 minutes into, we have 10
    minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, is
    next, and he'll be recognized momentarily. The gentleman from
    Iowa, if he chooses to, can take the Chair and ask his
    questions, but he'll be cutting really close on the votes. And
    we will then return after the votes and we hope our witnesses
    can remain because there will be a few other Members, including
    myself, Mr. DeSantis.
        Have you asked questions?
        Mr. Bachus. Yes. Ms. Tumlin didn't get a chance to respond.
        Mr. Goodlatte. No, I understand, I understand, but we're
    running really close on time.
        Mr. Bachus. I just think if you're going to let other
    witnesses, she ought to be given a minute. Because, I mean,
    despite the fact that----
        Mr. Goodlatte. If the gentleman would suspend, I'm going to
    do that, but I don't have very much time to accomplish it and
    get both Mr. Garcia and Mister--Mr. King said he's going to
    come back. Okay. So first we're going to go to Ms. Tumlin, she
    can respond, and then we're going to go to Mr. Garcia, and we
    will then come back after votes.
        Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense that we
    just go back. And I'd rather Ms. Tumlin speak to people when
    they're here. It sort of doesn't make sense that she speak. I
    know of her good work and her organization's incredible work. I
    know of Clarissa's good work. And maybe we should all be here
    to listen as opposed to letting her speak into the nothingness.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I understand, but many Members may not
    come back after. So I don't know if there will be more Members
    then than there are now and I'll give her--
        Mr. Garcia. Go ahead, Ms. Tumlin. I'm sorry.
        Ms. Tumlin. Okay. Thank you. And I know you have to vote to
    get to.
        I think it is really important how we engage in this
    discussion and the level of dialogue we use. I want to be
    really clear, at no point did I say that I believe law
    enforcement is too dumb to enforce immigration law. So let's be
    clear. In my world I have to deal with facts and evidence. I
    don't get extra credit for representing undocumented
    immigrants, no one gives me an extra chance. I need to deal
    with facts and evidence.
        The facts and evidence show from court findings from the
    Department of Justice that under the 287(g) program in its
    prior incarnation, the way it operates now, there are patterns
    of unconstitutional violations. That's what we're pointing out
    today. And as an expert in immigration law when I read the 174
    pages of this bill I have serious fears about the expansion of
    that authority and what it would lead to and what it would mean
    on human terms.
        And also to the parents who lost their children, for
    everyone in this room it was hard to listen to. I am a mother.
    Of course I empathize with you. I cannot begin to understand.
    Because I'm a mother, I know I can't understand what happened
    to you. But I'm a proud American, and one of the things that I
    am proud of is that we believe in equality and equal treatment
    under the law. And this bill does not do that. That is why I'm
    concerned.
        We believe that you do not get held without probable cause
    and we believe that no group, whether they are noncitizens or
    whatever country they came from, is stripped of those
    constitutional values. I urge us to look at what this bill does
    to remove equality under the law for a specific group. And I
    appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman's time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentlewoman.
        Mr. Garcia. I'll go ahead and take my 5 minutes, there is
    enough time.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Okay. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
    from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Garcia. I've seen the law enforcement persons here, and
    I, unlike others here, I have spent a great deal of my time
    working on immigration. And one of the great prides that I find
    in working with law enforcement is that law enforcement doesn't
    want additional responsibilities, that law enforcement is
    overwhelmed with responsibility already, very sacred trust that
    they have with the local communities, with those people that
    get hurt, in particular to get witnesses of serious crime. And
    so I worry about how we're selling this here.
        Mr. Crane has come here time and time and time again and
    spoken against immigration reform. And, Mr. Chairman, I have
    the deepest respect for you and for trying to get this through,
    but this isn't the debate we should be having today. We are
    close to solving a national problem that could have solved a
    lot of problems we've seen here today. And it is important that
    we realize that. Because we can pull back, fear, fear mongering
    and hate and anger are underlying a lot of what goes on today
    here. And clearly we've come a long way, and it's very
    important to go that way.
        I want to bring this question to either Clarissa, Ms.
    Martinez, or Ms. Tumlin. I happen to know for a fact because
    I've worked with you both in the past or your organizations
    that you have dealt with law enforcement. Can you speak to that
    really quickly?
        Ms. Tumlin. Yes, and I think we'll both address that
    quickly. Absolutely we speak with law enforcement regularly. We
    talk to police chiefs, we talk to sheriffs about this very
    issue. And what they have told us is exactly what the
    Congressman is pointing out. We want to do our jobs. We need
    the community to have our back, not to be terrified of us. We
    want to make choices about how to prioritize, how to enforce
    law and keep our communities safe. We've heard that from
    sheriff after sheriff across the country.
        Ms. Martinez-De-Castro. Yes, and I spoke about this at the
    beginning. There are differences of opinions, but I think that
    there is a shared concern in the law enforcement community
    about how this interaction takes place, what it may do for
    people's willingness to report crime, whether a crime is being
    committed against them or whether they are witness to one.
        And I think as we've heard from several Members, a very
    recent study corroborates previous studies that say that that
    is not unique to people who are undocumented, it is also a fear
    that is now taking hold of Latinos who are U.S. citizens.
        Again, this is about balance. I feel that a lot of the
    discussion here, there's almost like aggressive agreement on
    some things and then we're trying to focus on the things we
    don't agree on. We cannot continue to tear each other apart and
    move us away from actually--we're much closer to a consensus
    that we think.
        And the American public has a larger consensus on this
    issue that Congress gives it credit for, and I do hope, as is
    usually the case, that leaders follow the people, that we can
    get there soon. We have a real opportunity to do it this year.
    The solution does involve law enforcement. But, again, we've
    been doing enforcement for 20 years. We can say we've learned
    lessons and we can do it better, and I do think enforcement
    needs to be smarter and more accountable based on the lessons
    we have learned over that regime in the last 20 years. But I
    think we also have to admit that the solution we are after is
    not going to come through that one piece alone.
        Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you.
        Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman for a minute
    and a half of additional time----
        Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. For Members to get to the
    floor.
        Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Yes?
        Mr. Conyers. Could I inquire as to whether there's any
    intention that this measure be marked up next week?
        Mr. Goodlatte. We are working very steadily toward making
    an announcement on that very soon.
        Mr. Conyers. Could I caution you that, for one, I'd like to
    review this record and I'd like to see the transcript before we
    move to that.
        Mr. Goodlatte. I know the gentleman has been here for most
    of the hearing and has had the benefit of that, and we want to
    afford him of the opportunity to hear as much information as
    possible. But we also recognize that there is a lot of work
    going on in both the House and the Senate and this Committee
    needs to do its work as well. So we'll have further discussion
    about that.
        Right now we do have a vote pending on the floor with very
    little time for the Members to get there. So the Committee will
    stand in recess. And we ask the witnesses to stay because we do
    have at least two or three more Members who would like to ask
    you questions, including myself. And we thank for your patience
    and forbearance.
        The Committee will stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. King [presiding]. This Committee will come to order. I
    want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of your lives
    to be here to speak up for American values on whichever side of
    the argument that you might be. And I appreciate some of the
    tone and the demeanor that I have seen among the witnesses here
    just recently as well. So a lot of the Members have elected to
    move on to other duties. And the Chair will recognize himself
    for 5 minutes.
        As I listened to the testimony, I reflected on a few
    things. A hearing here before the Judiciary Committee, as I
    began--and I will direct my first question to Mr. Crane so that
    he can be ready--a hearing we had some weeks ago before this
    Judiciary Committee, I had a self-professed illegal alien
    approach me and lobby me on immigration policy. I came on
    inside the chambers and there was an introduction of people
    that quite likely were unlawfully present in the United States.
        I would first turn to Mr. Crane and say, was there anything
    you could have done to bring lawfulness to that behavior?
        Mr. Crane. No, sir. I think I probably would have lost my
    job had I even spoken to anyone. In fact, the Senate hearing
    that I did where there was an illegal alien present, I sent an
    email to the director of ICE asking him for guidance on how, as
    an officer, I should respond in that situation, and they
    wouldn't even respond to me. But judging from things that are
    happening in the field right now, you know, if that person was
    in jail, I couldn't do anything to him right now, let alone in
    Congress.
        Mr. King. But the reason for that wouldn't conform with
    U.S. law, would it?
        Mr. Crane. I don't believe so. No, sir.
        Mr. King. Because the U.S. law directs that they be placed
    into deportation proceedings?
        Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
        Mr. King. And so what would be the thing that prevents you
    from enforcing U.S. law?
        Mr. Crane. It would be the policies of the Obama
    administration; specifically, the prosecutorial discretion
    memorandum in this case as well as other policies, such as our
    detainer policies and our guidance for making arrests in the
    field.
        Mr. King. Don't I remember in one of those memorandum that
    there were, I believe, seven references to on an individual
    basis only and references to prosecutorial discretion? Are you
    familiar with that memo that I'm referring to and the language?
        Mr. Crane. I don't remember that language specifically, but
    I know there were about 18 different scenarios or something.
    And that at the bottom it says, this is not an exhaustive list
    of the times that you have to exercise this type of discretion.
    So like I've said many times, we're clueless out in the field
    with regard to how to enforce. At this point, most officers and
    agents just try to keep their heads down and stay out of
    trouble. Staying out of trouble, meaning don't arrest anyone.
        Mr. King. Do they, though, reference an individual basis
    only on prosecutorial discretion?
        Mr. Crane. I'm sorry?
        Mr. King. Is part of the directive that you have from the
    Administration to utilize prosecutorial discretion on an
    individual basis?
        Mr. Crane. Yes.
        Mr. King. But aren't we dealing with this essentially as
    full classes of people?
        Mr. Crane. I think it works both ways from the
    Administration policies, that they tell us to do it on an
    individual basis but at the same time they give us orders not
    to arrest or detain entire classes of individuals.
        Mr. King. So the memo might say individual basis
    prosecutorial discretion, but it's applied on a group basis and
    you don't have the discretion to apply the law?
        Mr. Crane. That's exactly right. And prosecutorial
    discretion is not discretion, they're orders not to. We have no
    discretion. We're being ordered not to arrest certain
    individuals or groups.
        Mr. King. Some of that's the basis of the case of Crane v.
    Napolitano.
        Mr. Crane. Yes, sir.
        Mr. King. And can you inform the Committee of the status of
    that particular--before you do that, I do have this decision
    from Judge Reed O'Connor from the Northern District of Texas.
    And I'd ask unanimous consent to introduce this decision into
    the record.
        Hearing no objection, it will be introduced into the
    record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. King. And I'd ask you then, Mr. Crane, if you could
    speak to the Crane v. Napolitano case as far as the decision so
    far and the impending decisions that we think will be made.
        Mr. Crane. Just basically that the case is not just about
    DACA. It's also about the prosecutorial discretion memorandum.
    It's been characterized incorrectly, I think, in the media, as
    well as in some of the meetings that we have had here. So
    basically it impacts almost every person that we come in
    contact with as ICE agents, that we're being told not to arrest
    these individuals. The judge's preliminary decision has been
    that we are correct in our legal position, that it's illegal
    for the Administration, political appointees to tell us to not
    to follow the laws enacted by Congress. And the case actually
    hinges at this point not on a critical point of law, but
    whether or not we as Federal employees can sue the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. King. Now, if this Congress should pass legislation
    that directs the executive branch to enforce a law--for
    example, local law enforcement enforce the law--if they direct
    that those persons that then are interdicted be placed into
    deportation proceedings, whatever might come out of this
    Committee, whatever might come out of this Congress, whatever
    might be agreed to in a conference committee between the House
    and the Senate, can you imagine how the Congress could change
    the position of the President to defy immigration law? Would
    new law be treated the same? Or what would be the distinction
    that you've see between this bill that's before us today and
    the actual statute that the President has defied?
        Mr. Crane. I'm sorry, sir. I don't completely understand.
        Mr. King. If the President won't enforce existing law, why
    would we expect him to enforce new law?
        Mr. Crane. We absolutely don't. And, you know, we have been
    very open about this in the past. We had problems with this
    under previous Republican administrations as well. I think it's
    been especially egregious under this one. But it's something
    that has to be addressed by Congress. We can't depend on our
    next President enforcing a law instead of creating a law. We
    have to create laws that are going to make the executive do
    their job.
        Mr. King. I want to thank all the witnesses for your
    testimony. It's been compelling. And I want to let especially
    those most personal of experiences that you have relived the
    pain, I want to thank you especially for that. And I will tell
    you that the emotion within all of us, on whichever side of the
    aisle we're on, our hearts and our prayers are with you. And I
    believe we have an obligation as a Nation to square away the
    rule of law, protect the American people.
        And I ask the question of this inertia for amnesty, why?
    Why would we do this? How would Americans benefit from this? We
    should have an immigration policy that is designed to enhance
    the economic, the social, and the cultural well-being of the
    United States of America.
        This concludes today's hearing. Thank you all again, the
    witnesses, for attending.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
    additional materials for the record.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]