Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 148 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7325-H7334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3697, CRIMINAL ALIEN GANG MEMBER
REMOVAL ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2017.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 513 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 513

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3697) to
amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to
aliens associated with criminal gangs, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
September 15, 2017, through September 22, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 513,
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien
Gang Member Removal Act. Before I discuss the rule, Mr. Speaker, I
would first like to take this opportunity to thank all the first
responders who have been working tirelessly in the wake of Hurricanes
Harvey and Irma, and to send my thoughts and prayers to those who have
suffered loss because of these storms.
Georgia saw much of Hurricane Irma's devastation firsthand, and I
would like to thank the men and women who are responding to the people
in need and rebuilding our communities. I am grateful to all of those
who have played and are playing a part in these recovery efforts.
As someone who is still back home without power, I understand the
need that is going on in Florida all the way up through northeast
Georgia. This is truly a ``from the beach to the highlands'' kind of
issue, and we are continuing to thank our law enforcement, our first
responders, and especially those that work for the power companies and
others getting the utilities back on that we take for granted so many
days. I just want to say thank you to them.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from two
of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson from Louisiana
and Ms. Lofgren from California. Much of H.R. 3697 received
consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part of a larger bill, the
Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law
Enforcement Act.
After a lengthy and thorough debate, the Judiciary Committee marked
up and reported favorably that legislation on May 24.
As a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Davis-Oliver Act, I hope
to see that legislation pass before the full House. Today we have an
opportunity to increase public safety by moving an important piece of
that bill forward as H.R. 3697.
I want to recognize Representative Barbara Comstock, my colleague
from Virginia, for introducing the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal
Act. I also want to thank Representative Comstock and this bill's
cosponsors--Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Sessions, Congressman Peter
King, and Congressman Labrador--for their work on this issue.
From fiscal years 2016 to 2017, ICE agents made over 8,000 gang-
related criminal arrests, leading to over 2,600 convictions. America's
families, friends, and neighbors are watching the problem of
transnational gang violence grow, and ICE reports that membership of
these gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals. Many of
these gang members terrorizing our streets are here illegally.
MS-13, in particular, has experienced growth at the expense of
American neighborhoods and public safety. In fact, the Department of
Justice has said that MS-13, which originated in Central America, has
10,000 members in the United States, and 40,000 members worldwide. As
if this wasn't a clear enough threat, the other transnational gangs are
on the rise as well.
Sophisticated gang leaders have recognized that our immigration
system is susceptible to exploitation and have taken advantage. MS-13
violence has hit communities in Boston, New York, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C., particularly hard, but the problem is not limited to
these areas.
In my home State of Georgia, ICE agents recently arrested an
individual who played an active role in a murder in Virginia. In
northern Virginia, at least eight murders have been attributed to MS-13
since last November. This is unacceptable.
While it is not the only step we can take, one major way we can help
to address this problem is to make sure that transnational gang members
who are seeking to bring their tactics to our soil do not exploit our
immigration laws. We need to use all the tools in our toolbox to
address this problem of gang violence, and the underlying bill we are
considering today helps us do that. It recognizes that transnational
gang members have taken advantage of our immigration laws while
addressing existing flaws in our system.
This bill becomes clear that Congress will uphold its duty to protect
the safety of the American people and provide critical tools to law
enforcement.
Importantly, while this bill cracks down on criminal alien gang
members and strengthens our system, it preserves due process and burden
of proof protections. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes
the commonsense step of ensuring that criminal gang members are
ineligible for asylum, special immigration, juvenile status, and
temporary protected status.
The bill also adds grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for
criminal alien gang members, and it requires that criminal alien gang
members are kept in custody prior to and during the immigration court
proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, under New York City's sanctuary city policy, a criminal
alien who was an admitted gang member was allowed to leave Rikers
Island after serving time for another offense. This was a particularly
egregious case of how flaws in the system are serving gangs, but it
also highlights the clear challenge under existing statutes.

Under current law, the criminal alien's self-admission of gang
affiliation is not reason enough to deport

[[Page H7326]]

that individual. To be deported, the alien has to be convicted of
another independent crime, even if he or she admits to being part of a
gang.
In Houston, two MS-13 members kidnapped three young girls, ultimately
killing one. These individuals, gang members from El Salvador, were in
the United States illegally.
In yet another instance, a sheriff's deputy in Frederick County,
Maryland, was attacked by a known member of MS-13. This is disturbing
on its own, but what makes it even more so is that the gang member had
been previously apprehended and released by Customs and Border Patrol.
For each of the stories I have shared with you today, there is
another that I haven't. The violent and brutal actions of transnational
gangs operating on our soil have led to far too many tragedies as they
prey on our vulnerable neighborhoods, recruit children, and commit
unthinkable crimes.
Mr. Speaker, let me also make it clear that these violent gangs are
targeting immigrant communities. According to the police chief in
Maryland, MS-13 has ratcheted up its extortion of immigrant families
and businesses. The gang threatens not only the individuals in the
United States, but their families back home if these law-abiding
immigrant individuals don't meet the gang's demands.
Concern for our fellow citizens tells us that we should not be
admitting these individuals to our country, and we should be removing
them when they commit crimes or yoke themselves to gangs that
perpetrate violence.
These criminal alien gang members should not be let back onto the
streets to victimize more people while their immigration proceedings
are ongoing, and they shouldn't be allowed to exploit our laws to gain
the benefits reserved for the vulnerable individuals seeking to enter
our Nation.
The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act makes important strides in
protecting the safety of our citizens and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, we in this House are taking a stand against the
senseless violence and lawlessness and the criminal enterprise that
these gangs bring to our soil. We are strengthening our laws against
transnational gangs and ensuring criminal alien gang members can and
will be removed from this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my friend from Georgia with
reference to the ongoing recovery period that we are experiencing in
region four, and I especially offer compliments to the Federal family
of agencies that have been on the ground working in all of our region.
Like my friend from Georgia, my home is without power, and we urge
patience. The authorities are working with the utility companies and
they really do have a lot of people on the ground, and it is expected
that they will be able to restore power and we will be able to take the
long-range view with reference to recovery.
Certainly, we want to thank the first responders. The local
authorities have been on their game at their best, as well as the
National Oceanic Weather Service that has supplied a lot of information
to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for H.R. 3697, the
Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. Today's rule brings the number
of closed rules for the 115th Congress to 42. In other words, more than
50 percent of the legislation coming out of the Rules Committee has
been closed off from open and honest debate; closed off by my
Republican friends.
At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican
colleagues and the Speaker that they would run the government and, more
particularly, the people's House in an open and transparent manner.
They even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been
jettisoned in favor of an overtly partisan approach to governing that
is indeed unfortunate.
By way of example, the bill we are discussing today was introduced
last Thursday, brought to the Rules Committee last night, and is now
going to be put before the House for a vote without the committee of
jurisdiction holding one hearing on the bill or Members having the
opportunity to offer their amendments, which is too bad, because this
bill is really in desperate need of help.
During our debate last night, one of my Republican colleagues on the
Rules Committee posed three hypothetical situations and asked: If this
bill were to become law, what effect the bill would have in those
instances?
Not surprisingly, the answers we got were confusing, convoluted, and
contradictory. Now we find ourselves here today asking the entire
membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one
can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if
this bill were to become law.

{time} 1230

Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with
this bill can't get much worse.
Mr. Speaker, challenged by their party's leader, Donald John Trump,
to fix DACA, House leadership, instead, brings this bill to the floor,
a bill that does nothing but peddle in the politics of fear, a bill
that purports to make communities safer, when all it does is serve red
meat to the Republican base and foment xenophobia.
Everyone in this House, everyone in this Nation, can agree that
confronting and defeating the perpetrators of gang violence is a good
and worthy goal. In fact, we already have laws on the books that do
just that. We already have task forces on gangs in virtually all of our
communities.
This bill, on the other hand, will not make our communities safer. It
will, however, undermine the rule of law in this country by betraying
our commitment to the Constitution's guarantee of due process. The bill
is also glaringly pretextual in its approach and overbroad in its
effect so that it can be seen as nothing other than yet another move to
implement Donald John Trump's promise to the Republican base to engage
in mass deportation of immigrant communities across our country.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our immigration system is in dire
need of attention. It is also clear that we should approach our work in
a manner that is fair to all Americans and compassionate toward those
who have fled unbelievable violence and are seeking a better life here
in the United States.
We should be proud that we remain--despite the anti-immigrant
rhetoric emanating from the White House--a beacon of hope for freedom-
loving people around the world, and we should remain welcoming upon
their arrival.
This, however, is not the tack taken by many of my Republican
friends, and is certainly not the path taken by House leadership with
today's bill.
As evidence of their approach, we need only to look at the despair
the Republican Party has cast upon the 800,000 DREAMers who live in
this country. Instead of finally making permanent the status of
DREAMers in this country as full citizens, the first act the Republican
majority takes after Donald John Trump tweeted that he would end DACA,
then tweeted that he would revisit the issue in 6 months, the first
thing that they did was to present a bill that is so broadly drafted
that a group of five or more nuns could constitute a criminal gang in
the eyes of the law.
Indeed, the bill's harboring provisions under section 274 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act are, as Sister Simone Campbell said,
``so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter,
transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found
liable of criminal activity. The Federal courts have found that
`harboring' includes offering a known undocumented individual a place
to stay.''
Sister Simone concluded with this salient point: ``This statute has
been used against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to
make it a weapon for the future.''
Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short years ago that the Grand Old
Party, in the wake of their electoral loss to President Barack Obama in
2012, issued their autopsy of what went wrong. That report concluded
that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanic
Americans.

[[Page H7327]]

Yet, instead of heeding their own advice, President Donald John Trump
called Mexican Americans murderers and rapists on the very first day of
his campaign. From that dark point on, Hispanic Americans have had to
watch one of the two major political parties in their country descend
further and further into the abyss of xenophobia.
Democrats stand ready to have a serious conversation about
comprehensive immigration reform and border security, and I urge my
Republican friends to put the red meat aside for the moment and work
with us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, the
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security, a clear-eyed thinker on this subject,
and has been the same for a protracted period of time. Few in this body
can rival her abilities on this particular subject.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the Criminal
Alien Gang Member Removal Act, but, as we have seen in the past, the
name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual text of the bill,
and that is true in this case, regrettably.
As has been mentioned, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal
gangs so broadly as to sweep in many individuals that no one would
think of as a gang member.
The bill, for example, would classify any group of five that engages
in harboring as a criminal gang. Now, harboring includes giving shelter
to, or transporting, or providing other kinds of aid to undocumented
immigrants. This means, as has been mentioned, that a religious
organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be defined as a
criminal gang. And any immigrant clergy or congregationalist that
assists that organization would be deportable if they are a legal
permanent resident, or on a religious worker visa, or the like.
Now, this isn't just a hypothetical. During the 1980s, members of the
religious communities were repeatedly prosecuted for providing
transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one fell swoop, this bill
could turn nuns into gang members. And that is why I include in the
Record, Mr. Speaker, the letter that Mr. Hastings referenced from the
nuns objecting to this piece of legislation for those reasons.

Network Advocates for

Catholic Social Justice.

Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Exactly one
week ago, President Trump announced the termination of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program,
putting at risk the lives and well-being of undocumented
immigrant youth who are valued members of our communities.
DACA has protected nearly 800,000 immigrant youth from
deportation and allowed them to work, attend school, and be
publicly participating members of our communities.
The President's action threatens every DACA recipient and
causes great anxiety. This anxiety exists not just with the
DACA youth but also in the broader community. We all are
concerned about their future and fear their deportation to a
country they neither know nor call home. Today, rather than
taking up President Trump's challenge to ``fix'' DACA, the
House Judiciary Committee is choosing instead to stir up
politics of fear in our communities by proceeding with H.R.
3697 in an effort to criminalize the undocumented status of
some members of our communities. Network Lobby for Catholic
Social Justice strongly urges Members of the House to vote NO
on H.R. 3697.
The faith community has vigorously opposed any bill that
would promote the Trump Administration's stated goal of
engaging in ``mass deportation'' of immigrants. The Trump
agenda seeks to allow for the detention and removal of large
numbers of immigrants without any criminal records. H.R. 3697
is just the latest bill targeted to achieve this goal. The
bill purports to make communities safer by targeting the
deportation of people involved in criminal activity in gangs.
However, it is poorly drafted and overboard with sweeping
generalizations. It even allows for the removal of
individuals based on the mere subjective belief of an
association to criminal activity. There is no requirement of
a criminal conviction for deportation. This violates any
principle of fairness as well as the Constitution's guarantee
of due process.
As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor and
welcome the stranger. As such, we stand in solidarity with
all people including our immigrant sisters and brothers.
Catholic Sisters have a long history of work with immigrant
communities and a commitment to their safety and security.
Under this bill, religious workers who are engaged in
immigrant ministry could be subject to prosecution. The
bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so sweeping
that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation or
support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of
criminal activity. The federal courts have found that
``harboring'' includes offering a known undocumented
individual a place to stay. This statute has been used
against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to
make it a weapon for the future.
It is time for Congress to stop playing games with the
lives of our immigrant sisters and brothers. The real problem
Congress should be working on today is an effort to pass the
bipartisan Dream Act of 2017 championed by Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen (R-FL) and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard (D-CA). That
bill has broad support from the faith community and is a
substantive improvement to our fractured immigration system.
We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3697. It is poorly drafted
legislation that would increase the disruption in our
communities! Instead, work for the common good and take up
H.R. 3440 and pass the bipartisan Dream Act. Faith and
patriotism demand it.
Sincerely,

Sister Simone Campbell, SSS,

Executive Director,
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the bill also refers to felony drug
offenses. That includes, actually, use of drugs repeatedly that is
lawful in the State where it has been approved, but still unlawful
under Federal law.
That means, for example, in California, the voters of California
first approved medical marijuana, and then marijuana more broadly.
Groups of cancer patients take marijuana, and also epilepsy sufferers,
to assist in their medical condition. Under this bill, those
individuals who are repeatedly using marijuana in groups of five or
above would be a criminal gang.
Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill authorize DHS officers and
immigration judges to deport any immigrant, including lawful permanent
residents of the United States, without requiring a conviction or even
an arrest.
Instead, the DHS would rely on evidence as minimal as the color of a
person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, the individual in their
family, the belief of the officer. This is not just unreasonable, it is
probably unconstitutional.
Now, Chairman Goodlatte had an amendment that apparently recognized
this fact, but it only fixes one part of the problem. His amendment,
which would be effectuated through adoption of the rule, eliminates the
extremely low reason-to-believe standard with respect to deportation,
which applies, of course, to permanent residents and other immigrants
in the United States.
But even with this amendment, the bill authorizes the broad
deportation of noncriminals, including religious workers, and, as I
say, users of medical marijuana. And here is the other kicker: it could
deny admission, without any review, to anyone who is suspected of doing
a thing outlined in the bill, for example, using marijuana or a
religious worker harboring someone who is undocumented.
How would that work? If you are a legal permanent resident of the
United States and you go visit your family in another country, when you
try to come back in, you are stopped, and you are denied readmission,
even if you have been here 10, 20, 30 years, and there is no appeal.
You are out of luck.
That is not fighting MS-13. That is not about gang reduction. That is
really an overreach on this bill that none of us should agree with.
There is another way this would work, which is an adjustment of
status. Let's give this example: your son marries a woman from another
country who is here on a legal visa, but she is part of a church that
is providing sanctuary for a DREAMer. She is, therefore, suspected as
being part of this criminal gang, a group of five or more, that is
harboring this undocumented person.
When your son goes to petition for his now-wife to become a legal
permanent resident, she is going to be denied, and it is a reasonable-
belief standard, not the higher standard that Mr. Goodlatte has tried
to impose. There is no hearing. There is no appeal on that. Your
daughter-in-law, and probably your son, are going to have to leave the
country, and your grandchildren raised in another country.

[[Page H7328]]

This is really not the American way. It is unproductive. It doesn't
keep us any safer, and it doesn't do anything about MS-13.
I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on this rule and that we
could, instead, sit down together, reason together, come up with a plan
that actually does something about gang violence.
I am sure that, if we work together, we could come up with a bill
that meets the requirements of the Constitution; that is targeted
towards gang members, not nuns; and that actually makes our country
safer.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for allowing my comments on this. I
think the bill is mistitled, and it would be a mistake to allow it to
proceed without further changes.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation, H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and my fellow Judiciary Committee
colleagues for prioritizing cracking down on illegal immigration in the
committee this year. All the time, I hear from constituents who are
frustrated by this country's unwillingness to address our illegal
immigration problem. They are also fed up with hearing politicians
promise to do something about it, only to offer excuses later.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this Congress and this administration have
shown, over the last 9 months, that we are willing to do something
about illegal immigration, and this legislation is a great example of
our commitment to addressing this problem.
When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, I believe most
of us agree that we should start by targeting dangerous criminals who
put Americans at risk. H.R. 3697 is a commonsense measure that does
just that by amending existing law to combat gang violence by criminal
aliens.
Many Americans may hear this and wonder: ``What gang violence?'' The
most notorious Latin-American gang is known as MS-13, which began in
the 1980s, and has grown to an estimated 8,000 members in the United
States. They have a violent history of organized crime in the areas of
drug trafficking, kidnapping, human smuggling, sex trafficking, murder,
assassinations, blackmail, and extortion.
To give you an idea of just how violent MS-13 is, the English
translation of their motto is: ``Kill, steal, rape, control.''
Mr. Speaker, gangs of criminal aliens are terrorizing American
communities, and it is our responsibility to do something about it.
H.R. 3697 will amend the law to finally make a person's history of
involvement in a criminal gang grounds for inadmissibility into this
country--that means involvement in drugs, sex trafficking, kidnapping,
murder, or any other awful crime spelled out in the law.

{time} 1245

This bill would also allow law enforcement agents to automatically
detain and deport anyone found to be a criminal alien gang member.
Our first priority must be to keep Americans safe. Our laws and
policies should reflect our commitment to this responsibility. H.R.
3697 makes it crystal clear that criminal alien gang members are not
welcome in this country, and if they should find themselves here, we
are dedicated to getting them off the street.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act. This
bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people
who are Americans in every way except on paper.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) to discuss our proposal. My good friend is the
distinguished vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today's bill that is on the floor is
nothing more than a harsh measure that seeks to cast a broad net and
cast immigrants in general in a poor light by labeling them criminals
based on the suspicions but not the actual facts. What is more, this
harsh and reckless measure provides virtually no procedural safeguards
for people to challenge a police officer's opinion as to whether or not
they are involved in a gang. A mere suspicion can mean that somebody
can be facing removal.
Instead of dealing with such draconian legislation, we should really
be talking about the positive contributions that immigrants make to
this country and the fact that we have over 800,000 DREAMers in this
country who are waiting for this Congress to act. They have been hoping
and they have been waiting for years for this Congress to provide a
legislative solution to allow them to continue to live in their
communities, to contribute to the economy, to pay taxes, and to be a
part of a country that they consider their own.
Many of these DREAMers were brought to this country as children, and
they had no say in the matter. They speak the language here, not even
that of their home countries of birth. Many of them have no families or
ties there. Many of them are outstanding students who are studying law,
medicine, and engineering. They want to put their talents to work for
this country, and yet here today we are talking about a bill that would
basically seek to condemn all immigrants as gang members and try to
deport them as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter by the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the bill that we are debating
today and in support of allowing DREAMers a legislative path to remain
in this country, to continue to serve in the military to fight and die
for this country, to put their God-given natural talents to work to pay
into the system, and to generate good economic results.

Committee on Migration, Migration and Refugee Services,
USCCB,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2017.
Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration
(USCCB/COM) to express our serious concern regarding H.R.
3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act,'' which
is being considered by the full House for a vote this
Wednesday, September 13, 2017. We urge you to reject H.R.
3697 as it is a very broad bill that could contribute to
victims of criminal gangs facing detention and being barred
from seeking protection in the U.S.
The Catholic Church has significant interest in the
protection of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers. The
Catholic Church's work in assisting immigrants stems from the
belief that every person is created in God's image and should
be treated with dignity and compassion. While the Catholic
Church recognizes governments' sovereign right to control
their borders, we believe this right should be balanced with
the right of immigrants to access safety and due process.
Jesus himself was a migrant, and the Holy Family, a migrant
family fleeing persecution from King Herod. The USCCB works
to fulfill the teachings of the Church on migration through
our work providing resettlement services to refugees,
services to unaccompanied immigrant children, and case
management services to human trafficking victims in the
United States.
Violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala (the
Northern Triangle of Central America) remains the primary
force driving citizens to flee and seek protection. We have
seen firsthand from our work with unaccompanied children and
their families the increasing threat posed by gangs and
forcible gang recruitment in the Northern Triangle. Moreover,
the United Nations' refugee-protection agency (UNHCR) found
that the majority of children fleeing the Northern Triangle
``were forcibly displaced because they suffered or faced
harms that indicated a potential or actual need for
international protection.'' Alarmingly, however, H.R. 3697,
would deny critical protection to many of these children and
their families.
H.R. 3697 establishes both an expansive definition of
``criminal gang'' and a low threshold for association with
such a group. The bill allows those whom the government
merely has ``reason to believe'' have ever been gang members
or those who have participated in any activities of a
designated group as inadmissible, deportable and subject to
mandatory detention. Additionally, because of such a
perceived ``association'' by

[[Page H7329]]

the government, these individuals would be unable to access
several vital forms of legal relief, including asylum,
Temporary Protected Status, and Special Immigrant Juvenile
Status.
Given these severe consequences, we are particularly
concerned that H.R. 3697 provides no exemption for children
or other individuals who were victims of gangs and or
individuals who were forced to engage in gang-related
activities under duress. We fear that under H.R. 3697 there
will be victimized children who will be considered
``associated'' with criminal gangs. This concern is
reinforced by the stories of the children we serve daily.
They are children like Mariana who was 16 when the local gang
began to target and harass her in her home country of El
Salvador. Mariana lived in constant fear after the gang began
to threaten her and her family, ultimately forcing her to
smuggle a package of drugs to another neighborhood in El
Salvador. After this incident, Mariana fled to the U.S. to
escape the growing daily threat of the gang and also to avoid
forcible recruitment. Mariana is living with her mother now
while she complies with her immigration proceedings. Sadly,
we know Mariana is just one of many children from the
Northern Triangle trying to flee gang violence. H.R. 3697
would deny such children safety, forcibly returning them to
situations where their wellbeing and even their lives would
be at risk.
We should not be turning our back on children and families
who have fallen victim to and are fleeing from the very
criminal organizations which our country is so diligently
working to eradicate. Rather, these victims are deserving of
our compassion, care, and protection and should be encouraged
to tell their stories so that we may adequately bolster our
prevention and child protection work. Our committee
understands and appreciates your commitment to the safety and
security of our nation. H.R. 3697, however, is not the
answer. We must resist the urge to mischaracterize and
mislabel victims in search of a safe haven. We urge you to
reject H.R. 3697 and instead work towards immigration reform
that addresses root causes and safe repatriation and
integration. And we pray that the all victims of criminal
gangs--regardless of their immigration status--find peace and
justice.
Sincerely,
Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the class of DREAMers today
that contribute to this country, many of them work and go to school.
Many of them are breadwinners for their families. They want to stay,
and yet we have given them no opportunity to do so. They are patriotic,
they are talented, and what they contribute to our country economically
is tremendous.
If you think about the number of DREAMers who have bank accounts, who
have credit cards, and who purchase goods that are produced here in the
United States, to simply embark on a path of mass deportations isn't
going to help our economy, and it is going to rip apart these families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Speaker Ryan and House Republicans need to decide
whether they will be complicit in the Trump administration's cowardly
assault on DREAMers and immigrants or whether they will join the
overwhelming majority of Americans in calling on Congress to protect
these courageous and patriotic young people from the Trump
administration's mass deportation agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the
underlying bill and please stop giving lip service to these talented
young people. Provide them with a path to hope and a path to be able to
contribute to this country.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from
Florida that I have no more speakers on this side, and I am ready to
close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements in opposition to H.R.
3697 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian Americans
Advancing Justice, the Service Employees International Union, and the
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2017.
Re vote ``no'' on H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and
supporters, we urge members of the House to oppose H.R. 3697
which is expected to be brought up for a floor vote as early
as Thursday, September 14.
The American Civil Liberties Union recommends a NO vote on
this bill because it will promote widespread racial
profiling, violate First Amendment protections, expand
mandatory detention of immigrants, raise serious
constitutional questions on judicial review of government
designations of certain groups, and bar humanitarian relief
for individuals in violation of international treaties.
H.R. 3697 will promote widespread racial profiling, risking
violation of individuals' Fifth Amendment equal protection
rights.
H.R. 3697 will empower the immigration authorities to
conduct dragnet sweeps of Latino communities and other
communities of color. Media reports make clear that law
enforcement has recently relied on questionable and
unreliable evidence to assert that Latino individuals are
gang members, including wearing certain kinds of clothes or
doodling an area code from a Latin American country on a
school notebook. Officers have alleged gang membership
sometimes based on merely being seen with people who are
alleged gang members or living in neighborhoods known to
suffer gang activity. This bill gives DHS the latitude to
arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens including long-time
green card holders for the ``crime'' of living in an
immigrant neighborhood or showing pride in their countries of
origin.
Gang databases information-sharing arrangements between
local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities are
flawed, inaccurate, encourage biased policing, and have been
repeatedly shown to be unreliable. Gang databases have
extremely low thresholds for inclusion: simply living in a
neighborhood where there are gang members or talking to
people who are gang members often results in a young person
being placed in a gang database. An audit of California's
gang database CalGangs found that law enforcement could not
substantiate a significant proportion of their entries into
the gang database. Reliance on gang databases will only
further encourage racial profiling of young men of color
living in poor neighborhoods.
H.R. 3697 seeks to deport immigrants based on a mere
``reason to believe'' that they have been involved in gang
activities. This overly broad designation could sweep up
individuals who have not engaged in criminal activity.
Indeed, in many cases, H.R. 3697 could make immigrants
deportable for activities protected by the First Amendment.
H.R. 3697 subjects an individual to deportation if the
Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General ``knows or
has reason to believe'' that an individual is a gang member.
A person is also subject to deportation, if, the individual
has ``participated in the activities'' of the ``gang''
knowing or having reason to know that their activities will
``promote, further, aid or support'' the illegal activity.
This expansive language could sweep up people who have
committed no criminal activity whatsoever.
Even worse, H.R. 3697 risks making people deportable for
activities that are constitutionally protected under the
First Amendment.
``Reason to believe'' is an exceedingly low standard of
proof that will subject people to deportation based on mere
probable cause of gang involvement. This is especially
troubling given the lack of strict rules of evidence in
immigration court, where individuals may be deemed gang
members based on hearsay.
H.R. 3697 includes no exception for offenses committed as a
juvenile. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the broad
legal consensus that juveniles should be held to different
standards of culpability.
H.R. 3697 also includes no exception for having
``participated in the activities of a gang under duress,
which is a well-recognized defense against criminal conduct.
Many vulnerable individuals may have ``participated in the
activities'' of a gang under coercion, including for fear of
their lives or those of their family members. It raises
serious due process concerns to subject individuals to
removability based on such conduct.
H.R. 3697 grants the Department of Homeland Security
massive discretion to designate a group as a ``criminal
gang'', based on secret evidence, and without meaningful
judicial review, which raises serious constitutional
questions.
H.R. 3697 creates a vague and overbroad definition of a
``criminal gang'' that sweeps in lawful and constitutionally
protected conduct.
H.R. 3697 grants the Secretary of Homeland extraordinarily
broad discretion to designate a group a ``criminal gang'',
based on ``classified'' or ex parte evidence that the
designated individuals may not access, even in a court
challenge. The Government's ability to rely on secret
evidence to make and defend the gang designation raises
serious due process concerns.
H.R. 3697 also bars individuals from ``rais[ing] any
question concerning the validity of [a gang designation]'' in
their own removal proceedings.
H.R. 3697 provides little to no opportunity to challenge
for those unjustly subject to a gang designation. A group
cannot petition for revocation for two years after the
designation, during which time alleged members cannot
challenge the validity of that designation in removal
proceedings--thereby punishing and deporting individuals over
facts they cannot challenge. Similarly, groups have 30 days
to file a legal challenge to the designation in court, but
that judicial review cannot prevent other pieces of the act
from moving forward, such as removal proceedings, until there
is a final order from the

[[Page H7330]]

court. Whether petitioning for revocation or challenging a
designation in court, this act has the effect of punishing
and removing individuals without providing sufficient options
for recourse or redress.
H.R. 3697 bars important forms of humanitarian relief for
individuals fleeing persecution and children facing
situations of abuse, which violates U.S. treaty obligations
and raises serious constitutional concerns.
At the same time, H.R. 3697 bars individuals accused of
gang involvement from asylum and withholding of removal, thus
stripping individuals fleeing persecution--including
potentially thousands of individuals fleeing gang violence in
Central America--from refuge in the United States. H.R. 3697
thus violates U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention
and the international law prohibition of nonrefoulement, or
the return of individuals to situations where they will face
persecution or torture.
H.R. 3697 would also strip children accused of gang
involvement of eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile
Status (SIJS), which provides immigration relief to children
facing abuse and neglect. To deport these children would be
cruel and irrational when many of the children applying for
SIJS have come to the U.S. to flee gang violence in Central
America.
H.R. 3697 irrationally strips individuals of Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) which is an important humanitarian
protection for noncitizens.
H.R. 3697 expands the scope of mandatory detention, in
violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
H.R. 3697 would require the mandatory detention of
immigrants accused of gang involvement, without the basic due
process of a bond hearing to determine if the person even
needs to be locked up in the first place.
H.R. 3697 would impose mandatory detention on individuals
who seek asylum at a port-of-entry--many of whom are fleeing
gang violence in Central America--by eliminating parole for
asylum seekers accused of gang ties.
The detention provisions raise serious due process
concerns. As the Supreme Court has held, ``[i]n our society,
liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without
trial is the carefully limited exception.'' Although the
Supreme Court has upheld limited periods of mandatory
immigration detention where Congress found certain categories
of noncitizens to pose a heightened flight risk or risk to
public safety, H.R. 3697 sweeps far beyond what is
constitutionally permissible.
Separate from any relationship with gang affiliation, the
TPS-specific provisions of the legislation revise the statute
to allow the government to detain noncitizens with TPS
``whenever appropriate under any provision of law.'' This
potentially raises the specter that noncitizens who have been
granted protection by our government could languish in
detention for prolonged periods of time, in violation of due
process.
The detention provisions are a massive waste of taxpayer
dollars. The immigration authorities already have full
authority to detain any individual pending a removal
proceeding. Individuals remain in detention unless they meet
their burden of proving, either to an immigration judge at a
bond hearing or to an ICE office make a parole determination,
that they pose no flight risk or danger to the community.
For the above reasons the ACLU urges a NO vote on H.R.
3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act.''
Regards,
Faiz Shakir,
Director, Washington Legislative Office.
Lorella Praeli,
Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
____

Asian Americans

Advancing Justice.

Vote ``No'' on H.R. 3697 ``Criminal Alien Gang Members Removal Act''

Dear Member of Congress: Asian Americans Advancing
Justice--AAJC urges you to vote NO on H.R. 3697, the Criminal
Alien Gang Members Removal Act. H.R. 3697 is unnecessary and
would criminalize immigrants without any due process
protections. Department of Homeland Security personnel would
have broad authority to designate someone as a gang member
without adequate justification or due process.
Additionally, it is shameful that this bill is going to the
house floor but the DREAM Act is not. Congress should not
vote on any immigration legislation until the Dream Act is
signed into law. Less than a week ago, President Trump
crossed a moral line in terminating the DACA program and
leaving 800,000 immigrant youth vulnerable to deportation.
When DACA is fully terminated on March 5, 1,400 Dreamers a
day will lose their ability to work legally and stay in the
United States. Congress must act to protect immigrant youth
immediately--not to endorse legislation that promotes racial
profiling and further criminalizes immigrant youth.
H.R. 3697 creates an overly broad definition of a
``criminal gang'' by allowing DHS to designate any individual
as a gang member. This bill raises a host of due process
concerns. It would allow ICE to target people who may or may
not appear to be in a gang and charge all those who seem in
any way connected to the individual members of the gang.
This bill includes new expansive powers to deport and block
individuals from entering the U.S. and requires mandatory
detention of anyone suspected of being in a gang. This bill
bars individuals from asylum, withholding of removal, TPS,
and SIJS. The mandatory bar would result in individuals who
only have a vague connection to a potential gang member being
barred from live-saving protection in the U.S.
Children arriving unaccompanied from Central America are
fleeing gang violence, not bringing it. Skyrocketing levels
of gender, family, and gang violence in these countries leave
youths with no choice but to flee or face gang recruitment,
sexual and gender-based atrocities, or murder. The United
Nations refugee agency has found that the majority of
children coming to the southern border merit protection under
international law.
Members of Congress cannot say they support Dreamers and at
the same time vote for measures like H.R. 3697 that
scapegoats immigrant kids as criminals. Please vote NO on
H.R. 3697.
____

Service Employees

International Union,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members
of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I urge
you to oppose H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act.
The bill includes an overbroad definition of gangs and gang
membership that would extend to efforts by good samaritans to
help immigrants in need. It also fails to establish adequate
due process standards to allow groups that are falsely
identified as gangs to challenge the designation.
Furthermore, it would require mandatory detention and would
eliminate core immigration relief for persons that the
Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice
``has reason to believe'' may be a gang member. Those
affected are likely to include many gang victims who often
are erroneously included in gang databases.
In addition to being far too broad, H.R. 3697 would do
little to reduce gang activity and could actually be
counterproductive. The bill focuses on driving immigrants
further underground, but that will make community policing
and proven gang prevention activities harder, and the bill
will have no impact on the majority of gang members who are
U.S. citizens.
We therefore strongly urge a no vote on H.R. 3697, and may
include this vote on our legislative scorecard.
Sincerely,
John Gray,
Legislative Director.
____

National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2017.
Re NHLA Opposition to H.R. 3697, Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the National
Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of 45 leading
national Latino nonpartisan civil rights and advocacy
organizations, to strongly urge you to vote against H.R.
3697, Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. This bill
further entrenches a national narrative that immigrants and
Latinos are criminals. To vote on this bill on the heels of
the President's decision to rescind the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals program sends a clear message to our
communities that we are unwelcome. NHLA recommends a ``no''
vote on H.R. 3697, and any similar legislation, including
amendments and cloture votes. NHLA will closely monitor any
votes on these matters for inclusion in future NHLA
scorecards evaluating Member support for the Latino
community.
The purpose of legislation like this is to categorize
immigrants and Latinos as dangerous criminals, by making
sweeping, false generalizations and assumptions about these
populations. Studies repeatedly have shown that immigrants
are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born
Americans, less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to
be repeat offenders. Meanwhile, the damage to immigrant and
Latino communities is clear. Latinos are already reporting
fewer crimes in major cities as a result of the toxic
political rhetoric against Latinos and immigrants under the
current administration. This proposal only serves to paint
immigrants and Latinos with a broad brush as gangsters and
lawbreakers.
H.R. 3697 creates a new definition under the Immigration
and Nationality Act for the term ``criminal gang,'' and would
severely penalize individuals determined by the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney General
to allegedly be a member of a criminal gang. This is
troubling legislation for a few reasons. The expansive
definition of what constitutes a ``criminal gang'' and
``criminal gang activity'' in this bill will open the door to
racial profiling and lead to the criminalization of
individuals who have never supported criminal behavior. The
bill empowers government officials to arrest, detain, and
deport any non-citizens, even lawful permanent residents, who
have not been found guilty of any crime under the law,
raising serious due process concerns. H.R. 3697 sets an
alarmingly low evidentiary standard, whereby government
officials can deport non-citizens who they ``know or ha[ve]
reason to believe'' are gang-involved. Another due process
concern is that once a non-citizen receives a

[[Page H7331]]

gang-classification, they may be unable to apply for any
legitimate relief. For example, one would be disqualified
from applying for Temporary Protected Status or Special
Immigrant Juvenile Status, even in cases where the child was
forced to join a gang at gunpoint, as is often the case with
minors fleeing Central America.
For people fleeing gender-based violence, which is
occurring with much more frequency in Central America,
barriers to forms of relief or protection are particularly
acute as many are often forced to join gangs to save their
lives.
H.R. 3697 sends a dangerous message to the country in a
time when our elected officials must be standing against
nativist messages, not catering to them. This bill does
nothing but criminalize immigrants and bar those who have
credible asylum claims from the safe haven they need. To the
extent Congress seeks to address the issue of gangs in the
U.S. and abroad, it must do so after careful study and with
smart policy. H.R. 3697 is neither well studied nor smart.
Rather, it is a misguided effort to broaden the scope of
those who will be accused of gang membership and to prohibit
future relief from individuals based merely on association or
unreliable indicators of gang membership, or to those who
were forced into gang membership under duress. Those who have
never been convicted, those who are not gang members, and
even those who have been extorted in an effort to save a
loved one's life will be punished. In the process, immigrants
and Latinos will continue to suffer the brutal consequences
of policies that criminalize our communities and stereotype
our people as nothing more than gang members. It is clear
that this bill is intended to further demonize immigrants and
will not serve to make communities safer, especially
considering that law enforcement already has mechanisms in
place to track gang activity.
This Congress has not only shirked its responsibility to
effectively address the problems with our broken immigration
system, but it is consistently moving our country in the
wrong direction by fostering space for dangerous and
xenophobic rhetoric and policy. Nonetheless, this body can
truly make meaningful change in the immigration landscape by
supporting efforts to provide a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants like DREAMers who have contributed so
much to our country.
We urge you to vote no on H.R. 3697. Thank you for your
time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Saenz,
MALDEF, President and General Counsel, NHLA Immigration
Committee Co-Chair.
Jose Calderon,
Hispanic Federation, President, NHLA Immigration Committee
Co-Chair.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle
is a multitalented person. In addition to his curriculum vitae, he
carries with him the mantle of being a man of the cloth. I know he
knows Matthew 25:35. It is oft quoted, and we do well to remember it.
Among the things that are said in that verse are: ``For I was hungry
and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a
stranger and you welcomed me.'' This sentiment must be our guiding
principle, our North Star, as we work to repair our broken immigration
system.
Today's bill is in total opposition to this sentiment as it works to
demonize, with one broad, careless, and probably unconstitutional
stroke, an entire group of people, the vast majority of whom simply
wish to find refuge from immense hardship in their country of origin.
My Republican friends should take yet another in a long line of
legislative mulligans on this bill and come to the table ready to work
in a sensible way to fix our immigration system. I would suggest they
could start by bringing the DREAM Act to the floor for an up-or-down
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I believe today's debate has made this very clear. We
are talking about gang members from some of the most violent gangs in
the world. We are talking about removing members of those gangs that
are in this country and are attempting to come to this country
illegally.
We are a nation of laws. It is our duty to uphold those laws and to
strengthen those laws when necessary. This is a time when it is
necessary.
We are not talking about singling out certain community groups,
religious groups, or law-abiding citizens as someone said on the other
side or would have you believe. We are talking about strengthening and
enforcing our laws against known criminal alien gang members who are
putting our communities at risk and threatening our citizens and legal
residents.
The Federal Government's highest responsibility is to protect the
safety of our Nation and the American people. Cracking down on illegal
criminal alien gang members is one critical way we can do that.
The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes important strides to
better combat gang violence, and I look forward to supporting this rule
and the underlying bill to strengthen public safety and uphold the rule
of law.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule
governing debate of H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal
Act of 2017'', and the underlying bill.
I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because regular
order was not observed in bringing this bill to the floor, the bill
contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an
unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the
American people.
As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am
highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any
thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee.
In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation
that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale.
This bill extends the definition of ``criminal gangs'' as defined
under 18 USC section 521, and amends the INA to now include a
definition for criminal gangs as:
An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more
persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of
certain listed offenses, including:
--a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of
marijuana (this would impact high school kids who may gather to smoke
marijuana);
--bringing in and harboring certain aliens (this would cover
sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants);
--identity fraud offenses (including knowingly possessing a false
identity document);
--crimes involving obstruction of justice; and burglary.
A bill of this nature where the consequences are so severe to many
innocent parties, including a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, demands a
more robust dialogue with a prudent and judicious approach.
As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on
behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee;
and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree.
So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits
of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening.
Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative
process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will
continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter.
We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues
with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up.
So Mr. Speaker I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning
where necessary on behalf of the American people.
We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools,
health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change,
building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country
together for `all' the American people, we are instead debating a
damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on
mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business. We
are also uniting in protecting the American people against violent
crime.
I care deeply about crime as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime
Subcommittee, thus, if we want to have that debate here on the floor,
let's have a wholesome conversation.
The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs,
and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally
active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today.
Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to
control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities,
which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human
trafficking, and fraud.
Striking, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a
significantly larger percentage were non illegal immigrants, as this
bill's objective purports.
Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan
Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican
Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to
name a few here that are mainly white supremacist

[[Page H7332]]

gang groups. We could go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost
every ethnic group.
As a result, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill for several
reasons; first, it has a discriminatory effect in targeting the
immigrant community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises
due process and racial profiling concerns.
I offered an amendment which would have cured this defect by
requiring a uniform legal standard in the Secretary of Homeland
Security's designation of `criminal street gang' for purposes of ICE
enforcement.
Based on the government's own data via the FBI, it is clear that
criminal street gangs are not exclusively limited to the immigrant
community.
Second, I oppose this Rule because the bill has a sweeping effect
that will criminalize and/or deport anyone remotely connected to a
supposed gang member, even where there is no conviction and alarmingly,
no arrest.
My second amendment would raise the standard of proof from a mere
belief that someone is associated with a criminal street gang, to clear
and convincing evidence.
This bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland Security
is to determine its designation of a `criminal street gang'.
That is why I offered my third amendment, which would have required a
uniform legal standard which will govern the identification of Criminal
Street gang members for purposes of ICE enforcement.
According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a
13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of
detention and deportation.
If we begin to criminalize people merely for their associations, then
we are heading down a terribly dark road. Statistics show that the
brain does not fully develop until the age of 25, and thus to punish
juveniles for the mere associations they may have, is a bad idea and
bad legislation.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were
held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015.
Due to this bill's vague nature, it would add to that alarming
number, and further complicate mass incarceration.
This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent
residence status, so long as the government believes the individual is
associated with a criminal street gang.
My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this
bill. In its current form, the bill is bad for our country and does not
keep our communities safe, but instead does the opposite.
For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 513 Offered by Mr. Hastings

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 184, not voting 27, as follows:

[Roll No. 486]

YEAS--222

[[Page H7333]]

King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--184

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--27

Bridenstine
Castor (FL)
Clyburn
Costa
Crowley
Curbelo (FL)
DeLauro
Demings
Diaz-Balart
Engel
Garrett
Graves (MO)
Lawson (FL)
Loudermilk
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McEachin
Mitchell
Palmer
Poe (TX)
Posey
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rutherford
Scalise
Tiberi
Webster (FL)

{time} 1320

Mr. WALZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WALDEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 186, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 487]

AYES--222

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--186

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--25

Bridenstine
Castor (FL)
Clyburn
Costa
Curbelo (FL)
DeLauro
Demings
Diaz-Balart
Garrett
Graves (MO)
Lawson (FL)
Loudermilk
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McEachin
Mitchell
Perry
Poe (TX)

[[Page H7334]]

Posey
Rooney, Francis
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rutherford
Scalise
Tiberi
Webster (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.

{time} 1328

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________