[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7387-H7402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
CRIMINAL ALIEN GANG MEMBER REMOVAL ACT
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 513, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3697) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
with respect to aliens associated with criminal gangs, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Pursuant to House
Resolution 513, the amendment printed in House Report 115-307 is
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3697
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act''.
SEC. 2. GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY FOR
ALIEN GANG MEMBERS.
(a) Definition of Gang Member.--Section 101(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(53) The term `criminal gang' means an ongoing group,
club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that
has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or
more of the following criminal offenses and the members of
which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a
continuing series of such offenses, or that has been
designated as a criminal gang by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, as
meeting these criteria. The offenses described, whether in
violation of Federal or State law or foreign law and
regardless of whether the offenses occurred before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are the
following:
``(A) A `felony drug offense' (as defined in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
``(B) An offense under section 274 (relating to bringing in
and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to
aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United
States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for
immoral purpose).
``(C) A crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of
title 18, United States Code).
``(D) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering
with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant,
or burglary.
``(E) Any conduct punishable under sections 1028 and 1029
of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and
related activity in connection with identification documents
or access devices), sections 1581 through 1594 of such title
(relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons),
section 1951 of such title (relating to interference with
commerce by threats or violence), section 1952 of such title
(relating to interstate and foreign travel or transportation
in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 1956 of such
title (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments),
section 1957 of such title (relating to engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 of such title
(relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor
vehicles or stolen property).
``(F) A conspiracy to commit an offense described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E).''.
(b) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(J) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien is
inadmissible who a consular officer, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, or the Attorney General knows or has
reason to believe--
``(i) to be or to have been a member of a criminal gang (as
defined in section 101(a)(53)); or
``(ii) to have participated in the activities of a criminal
gang (as defined in section 101(a)(53)), knowing or having
reason to know that such activities will promote, further,
aid, or support the illegal activity of the criminal gang.''.
(c) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(G) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien is
deportable who--
``(i) is or has been a member of a criminal gang (as
defined in section 101(a)(53)); or
``(ii) has participated in the activities of a criminal
gang (as so defined), knowing or having reason to know that
such activities will promote, further, aid, or support the
illegal activity of the criminal gang.''.
(d) Designation.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by inserting
after section 219 the following:
``designation of criminal gang
``Sec. 220. (a) Designation.--
``(1) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Attorney General, may designate a
group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more
persons as a criminal gang if the Secretary finds that their
conduct is described in section 101(a)(53).
``(2) Procedure.--
``(A) Notification.--Seven days before making a designation
under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified
communication, notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, Majority
Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the members of
the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate a group,
club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons under
this subsection and the factual basis therefor.
``(B) Publication in the federal register.--The Secretary
shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven
days after providing the notification under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Record.--
``(A) In general.--In making a designation under this
subsection, the Secretary shall create an administrative
record.
``(B) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider
classified information in making a designation under this
subsection. Classified information shall not be subject to
disclosure for such time as it remains classified, except
that such information may be disclosed to a court ex parte
and in camera for purposes of judicial review under
subsection (c).
``(4) Period of Designation.--
``(A) In general.--A designation under this subsection
shall be effective for all purposes until revoked under
paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (c).
``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall review the
designation of a criminal gang under the procedures set forth
in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated group, club,
organization, or association of 5 or more persons files a
petition for revocation within the petition period described
in clause (ii).
``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--
``(I) if the designated group, club, organization, or
association of 5 or more persons has not previously filed a
petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition
period begins 2 years after the date on which the designation
was made; or
``(II) if the designated group, club, organization, or
association of 5 or more persons has previously filed a
petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition
period begins 2 years after the date of the determination
made under clause (iv) on that petition.
[[Page H7388]]
``(iii) Procedures.--Any group, club, organization, or
association of 5 or more persons that submits a petition for
revocation under this subparagraph of its designation as a
criminal gang must provide evidence in that petition that it
is not described in section 101(a)(53).
``(iv) Determination.--
``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving
a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph,
the Secretary shall make a determination as to such
revocation.
``(II) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider
classified information in making a determination in response
to a petition for revocation. Classified information shall
not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains
classified, except that such information may be disclosed to
a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial
review under subsection (c).
``(III) Publication of determination.--A determination made
by the Secretary under this clause shall be published in the
Federal Register.
``(IV) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Secretary shall
be made in accordance with paragraph (6).
``(C) Other review of designation.--
``(i) In general.--If in a 5-year period no review has
taken place under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall
review the designation of the criminal gang in order to
determine whether such designation should be revoked pursuant
to paragraph (6).
``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place
pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for
revocation that is filed in accordance with that
subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to
procedures established by the Secretary. The results of such
review and the applicable procedures shall not be reviewable
in any court.
``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Secretary
shall publish any determination made pursuant to this
subparagraph in the Federal Register.
``(5) Revocation by Act of Congress.--The Congress, by an
Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under
paragraph (1).
``(6) Revocation Based on Change in Circumstances.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may revoke a designation
made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall revoke a
designation upon completion of a review conducted pursuant to
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the Secretary
finds that--
``(i) the group, club, organization, or association of 5 or
more persons that has been designated as a criminal gang is
no longer described in section 101(a)(53); or
``(ii) the national security or the law enforcement
interests of the United States warrants a revocation.
``(B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements of paragraphs
(2) and (3) shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph.
Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the
revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no
effective date is specified.
``(7) Effect of Revocation.--The revocation of a
designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any
action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the
effective date of such revocation.
``(8) Use of Designation in Trial or Hearing.--If a
designation under this subsection has become effective under
paragraph (2) an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be
permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of
the issuance of such designation as a defense or an
objection.
``(b) Amendments to a Designation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may amend a designation
under this subsection if the Secretary finds that the group,
club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons has
changed its name, adopted a new alias, dissolved and then
reconstituted itself under a different name or names, or
merged with another group, club, organization, or association
of 5 or more persons.
``(2) Procedure.--Amendments made to a designation in
accordance with paragraph (1) shall be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register. Paragraphs (2), (4),
(5), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (a) shall also apply to
an amended designation.
``(3) Administrative record.--The administrative record
shall be corrected to include the amendments as well as any
additional relevant information that supports those
amendments.
``(4) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider
classified information in amending a designation in
accordance with this subsection. Classified information shall
not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains
classified, except that such information may be disclosed to
a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial
review under subsection (c) of this section.
``(c) Judicial Review of Designation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register of a designation, an amended
designation, or a determination in response to a petition for
revocation, the designated group, club, organization, or
association of 5 or more persons may seek judicial review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
``(2) Basis of review.--Review under this subsection shall
be based solely upon the administrative record, except that
the Government may submit, for ex parte and in camera review,
classified information used in making the designation,
amended designation, or determination in response to a
petition for revocation.
``(3) Scope of review.--The Court shall hold unlawful and
set aside a designation, amended designation, or
determination in response to a petition for revocation the
court finds to be--
``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
``(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege,
or immunity;
``(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitation, or short of statutory right;
``(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative
record taken as a whole or in classified information
submitted to the court under paragraph (2); or
``(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
``(4) Judicial review invoked.--The pendency of an action
for judicial review of a designation, amended designation, or
determination in response to a petition for revocation shall
not affect the application of this section, unless the court
issues a final order setting aside the designation, amended
designation, or determination in response to a petition for
revocation.
``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `classified information' has the meaning
given that term in section 1(a) of the Classified Information
Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
``(2) the term `national security' means the national
defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the
United States;
``(3) the term `relevant committees' means the Committees
on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives; and
``(4) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Attorney General.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for such Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
219 the following:
``Sec. 220. Designation.''.
(e) Mandatory Detention of Criminal Gang Members.--
(1) In general.--Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``or'' at the end;
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(J) or
deportable under section 217(a)(2)(G),''.
(2) Annual report.--Not later than March 1 of each year
(beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation
with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit a report
to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate on the number of aliens
detained under the amendments made by paragraph (1).
(f) Asylum Claims Based on Gang Affiliation.--
(1) Inapplicability of restriction on removal to certain
countries.--Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3)(B)) is amended, in the
matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``who is described
in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or section 237(a)(2)(G)(i) or who
is'' after ``to an alien''.
(2) Ineligibility for asylum.--Section 208(b)(2)(A) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)) (as amended by section 201 of
this Act) is further amended--
(A) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
(C) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) the alien is described in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or
section 237(a)(2)(G)(i); or''.
(g) Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244 of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1254a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(2) in subparagraph (c)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) the alien is, or at any time has been, described in
section 212(a)(2)(J) or section 237(a)(2)(G).''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
(B) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following:
``The Secretary of Homeland Security may detain an alien
provided temporary protected status under this section
whenever appropriate under any other provision of law.''.
(h) Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas.--Section
101(a)(27)(J)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'';
(2) in subclause (II), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H7389]]
``(III) no alien who is, or at any time has been, described
in section 212(a)(2)(J) or section 237(a)(2)(G) shall be
eligible for any immigration benefit under this
subparagraph;''.
(i) Parole.--An alien described in section 212(a)(2)(J) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection
(b), shall not be eligible for parole under section
212(d)(5)(A) of such Act unless--
(1) the alien is assisting or has assisted the United
States Government in a law enforcement matter, including a
criminal investigation; and
(2) the alien's presence in the United States is required
by the Government with respect to such assistance.
(j) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to acts that occur before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
General Leave
Mr. LABRADOR. 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 H.R. 3697.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act. I introduced this bill with Chairman Goodlatte and
Representatives Comstock and King for a very simple reason: the United
States is facing an ever-growing danger from transnational gangs, and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, needs
more tools to deal with this danger.
The Federal Government's most important responsibility is the safety
and security of the American people. However, we are not fulfilling
that responsibility when we allow gangs to illegally enter our country
with the express purpose of victimizing innocent Americans.
In communities across our country, transnational gangs are using
violence and the threat of violence to create a climate of fear that
allows them to operate with near impunity. They regularly target local
business owners and law enforcement officials. Innocent bystanders,
those unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are
also paying a price.
According to ICE, these gangs ``have grown to become a serious threat
in American communities across the Nation--not only in cities, but
increasingly in suburban and even rural areas. Entire neighborhoods and
sometimes whole communities are held hostage by and subjected to their
violence.''
Furthermore, ICE has found that, ``membership of these violent
transnational gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.''
The most infamous transnational gang, of course, is MS-13, which
entered the U.S. in the 1980s. Today, it has over 10,000 gang members
operating inside the United States alone. At every level, our
enforcement officials are working to curb this growing threat with
large-scale enforcement actions. These include Operation New Dawn,
which netted almost 1,100 arrests over a 6-week period.
However, we all know that prosecution of criminal gang members is
notoriously difficult. This is because victims and witnesses of gang
crime are often reluctant to testify because of the quite reasonable
fear of retaliation against them or their families, thus many gang
members are never convicted of the crimes they have committed.
The question is often asked: Why should law-abiding Americans have to
wait until an alien gang member has committed a deportable offense? Why
not deport the gang member before he has a chance to victimize more
innocent people? The answer is that current immigration law contains
dangerous loopholes that alien gang members are exploiting.
Currently, an alien may not be deported, even if he is known to be a
member of a criminal gang or participating in gang activities. ICE must
wait for the gang member to be first convicted of a deportable offense.
H.R. 3697 changes that. For the first time, ICE will be permitted to
place alien gang members into removal proceedings on the grounds of
being criminal gang members. Our bill sets out clear specifications for
what crimes are considered to be gang related, relying on longstanding
Federal criminal law to determine what a gang or group consists of.
In addition, our bill permits the Secretary of Homeland Security,
using procedures already used by the Secretary of State, to designate a
gang as a criminal gang. This would be done in a transparent way
through notification to Congress and publication in the Federal
Register and with meaningful judicial review.
The conclusive decision as to whether to place an alien in removal
proceedings would rest with the Department of Homeland Security. When
an alien is charged, the charge must be proven by evidence on the
record in immigration court.
I have heard some uneasiness that ICE will use these provisions to
charge any alien they encounter with gang activity. Our bill does not
allow that. As a former immigration attorney, I know the importance of
due process and know how important it is for illegal immigrants and for
Americans and everyone within the jurisdictions of the immigration
court to receive due process. I can tell you that our bill is
consistent with due process.
Under H.R. 3697, ICE has the burden of proof when charging an alien
with a deportable offense. While the alien has the burden of proof when
they are inadmissible, a denial of gang membership should be sufficient
to shift the burden back to the government. The government must
convince an immigration judge of its case. Of course, an alien ordered
removed as a gang member has every right to appeal that order to the
Board of Immigration Appeals and then to the Federal courts.
Ultimately, H.R. 3697 is about providing law enforcement with the
necessary tools to combat gang activity in every community in our
country. This is essential if we, as elected officials, are committed
to our responsibility to keep the American people safe and secure. That
is the purpose of H.R. 3697.
This is the third time this year the House is holding a floor vote on
portions of the Davis-Oliver Act, which I introduced back in May, to
make our country safer through stronger immigration enforcement.
I am proud that the House passed the first two bills that came from
Davis-Oliver, Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and I
encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3697 as well.
We must take action now or watch crime rates rise in our Nation.
There is no place in our country for criminal alien gang members, and
any legislation which makes it easier to deport them deserves the
support of every Member of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697. Gang members and
serious criminals should not be granted admission to the United States.
That is not a controversial position. I think almost every Member of
Congress, Democrat or Republican, agrees with that. It is our highest
priority to protect the safety of the American people. That is a duty I
think we all take seriously, but this bill does something other than
that.
The title of the bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act,
and, as we have seen in the past, there are times when the name of a
bill is not always reflected in the actual proposed language of the
statute, and that is true in this case.
First, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gang as ``an ongoing
group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that
has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more'' of a
wide range of offenses. This may seem reasonable until you look at the
offenses listed.
These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person
would think of as a gang member--for example, one of the offenses
relates to the harboring of undocumented immigrants. This statute
includes people who give shelter to, transport, or provide other kinds
of aid to undocumented immigrants. That means that,
[[Page H7390]]
under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented
immigrants could be a criminal gang.
This isn't just theoretical. During the 1980s, members of the faith
community were repeatedly criminally prosecuted for providing
transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one case, the FBI even
infiltrated a Bible study group to learn about the group's plan to
support undocumented immigrants. Under this bill, DHS would have
expanded authority to go after all such groups as criminal gangs. In
one fell swoop, it could turn nuns into gang members.
The bill also refers to felony drug offense, which would include the
repeated possession of marijuana. In California, my State, along with
several other States, voters decided to decriminalize marijuana--first,
for medical uses, then later for broader uses. Under this bill, a group
that regularly gets together to use marijuana that is legal under State
law would still be committing a felony under Federal law and would be a
criminal gang. That could include groups of people who are using
marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat epilepsy or cancer who are
taking marijuana consistent with State law.
Second, the bill authorizes DHS to deny admission or to deport any
immigrant, including one who has no criminal history or gang
affiliation whatsoever, so long as DHS merely believes the person is
associated with such a group.
Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill expressly authorize DHS officers
and immigration judges to deport an immigrant on nothing more than a
reason to believe that the individual has been a member of a gang or
has participated in the activities of a gang as defined under these
rather broad provisions. There is no need for conviction or even an
arrest. All DHS needs is a belief that the individual has assisted any
group of five or more people that DHS believes has committed one of
these long list of offenses.
This belief could be as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the
neighborhood they live in, or the individuals in their family. This is
not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Chairman
Goodlatte had a self-actualizing amendment when the rule was adopted to
change the evidentiary standard. I think it recognizes the problem with
the bill.
The amendment really doesn't cure the problem with the breadth of the
criminal gang definition, and it doesn't change the standard that
applies to people seeking admission to the country, including those who
are seeking to reunite with U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and
children.
Just this week, I met with actual police officers who asked me to do
what I could to defeat this unwise bill. They know, because they are
out on the front lines, that gangs are a real problem, and they told me
that bills like this, which could turn religious individuals, nuns,
cancer victims into targets, is just going to get in their way as
police officers.
If we want to keep America safe and admit immigrants who do not have
a felony record, I would suggest that we consider the bipartisan Dream
Act, H.R. 3440. This bill would provide a path to legal permanent
residence for 800,000 young people who were raised in America, who
consider this to be their home, who represent the very best of our
country.
Instead of debating whether we should allow ICE officers to target
religious workers, we should focus on what really makes this country
great.
I would like to note that there has been much discussion about the
drafting of this bill, and at the Rules Committee just last night,
Republicans defended the bill by asserting that the broad provisions
would not be abused by ICE officers. Even if they could target the
nuns, they wouldn't do that. Even if they could target the cancer
victims or the teenagers smoking marijuana after school as gang
members, they wouldn't do that.
{time} 0930
Now, I am not suggesting that the teenagers smoking marijuana after
school is a good thing. But it is not MS-13. And that is what we are
trying to make a distinction here between, a gang abatement bill and
garden-variety activity that we may not like.
One really very good and very thoughtful Member on the other side of
the aisle suggested that, if there is a problem with the bill, we will
just come back and fix it. Here is why that is a problem: We know that
when we draft something in a poor manner, it often goes on to be
enforced and we never get around to fixing it.
I will give an example. We passed years ago, and I objected at the
time--Henry Hyde was chairman of the committee--a provision that barred
people from gaining status if they provided material support to
terrorists.
Well, that sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean?
It turns out that material support--which was never qualified to
include support given under duress or given in the ordinary course of a
commercial activity--has now been used to bar people who are not
terrorists, who didn't give material support.
I will give you an example. A group of women called the Tortilla
Terrorists are women who were threatened with their lives and made
tortillas because they were threatened with death by guerrilla actors.
Now, they were denied asylum because of the tortillas, hence the name
the Tortilla Terrorists.
I think most of us would agree that is not terrorism. Yet, we drafted
the bill in such a way that the Department felt that they had to
enforce it in that way, and we have never gone back to it.
So to think that somehow if we write a law poorly, it is going to be
fixed in the administration, that is just wrong. We should step back
from this. We should work together. This was just introduced last week.
Now, I know the SAFE Act had hearings years ago, but I think we would
be better off if we sat down together, if we reasoned together, if we
worked through the defects in this draft, and came up with a bill that
really targeted MS-13 members, something that we could all support and
that well-served our country.
I will just say that Sister Simone Campbell, one of the leading nuns
in America, explained her opposition to this bill. She said:
The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so
sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter,
transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could
be found liable of criminal activity. This statute has been
used against religious workers in the past, and the bill
tries to make it a weapon for the future.
Let's listen to the nuns like we did in school, and step back,
redraft this bill, and oppose this poorly crafted measure today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), the lead sponsor of this bill.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, early this summer, on a Friday night,
just about 30 miles from this Capital, I went on a ride-along in my
district with our Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force.
A young boy standing on the sidewalk along Sterling Boulevard in
Sterling, Virginia, caught the eye of a veteran member of our task
force. The young man on the street looked about 15 or 16 years old, but
he was actually a 22-year-old member of the transnational violent
street gang known as MS-13. He was covered in MS-13 gang tattoos--on
his chest, his back, his feet.
It turned out, he had been in jail in El Salvador for murder as a
teenager, and he had already been deported from the U.S. twice for
engaging in violent crimes here.
Three other of the estimated thousands of MS-13 gang members that are
just here in our Capital region were also picked up that night. There
have been cases in northern Virginia where a suspected member of the
MS-13 gang has been deported five times, yet returned again to continue
their gang activity.
At a town festival in Herndon this year, the gang task force
identified--because they go to these events and they see these people--
an estimated 200 to 300 suspected gang members milling about among the
families who were getting cotton candy and hot dogs for their kids.
They are right there looking to recruit in their own communities.
Mr. Speaker, since November 2016, at least eight murders have been
committed and tied to MS-13 and other
[[Page H7391]]
gangs in our area, representing a 166 percent increase over the last
year in the northern Virginia region.
An MS-13-linked vicious murder occurred in November 2015. Of course,
I should acknowledge that they are all vicious when you are talking
about MS-13. This happened on an Alexandria playground in the evening
just about 8 miles from this Capital, and it resulted in the death of
24-year-old Jose Luis Ferman Perez. He was nearly decapitated in the
machete attack. His body was left on the playground and was found by a
woman walking her dog the next morning. It could have been one of the
kids playing on the playground finding that.
The Washington Post has highlighted how the 2014 border surge has
contributed to the MS-13 problem, saying: ``The violent street gang is
on the rise in the United States, fueled, in part, by the surge in
unaccompanied minors.''
A recent Washington Post article documented the case of gang members
who videotaped the murder of a 15-year-old girl, Damaris Reyes Rivas,
who was savagely beaten by multiple people, and repeatedly stabbed by
all of these gang members. The video of this was intended to be sent to
MS-13 gang leadership in El Salvador to confirm that this greenlit
murder had been carried out.
Tragically, MS-13 targets and preys upon their own community, on
young people who may not have much of a family structure around them.
Sadly, these children and young people were actually fleeing MS-13 in
their own countries of El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala, only to
come here and be targeted.
There was one case that, fortunately, the Norther Virginia Regional
Gang Task Force was able to intercept, where a brother was trying to
enlist his own brother to join the MS-13 gang. And when he refused to,
he put a hit out on him. Fortunately, the gang task force was able to
stop that.
We cannot allow this to stand. Mr. Speaker, the Northern Virginia
Regional Gang Task Force is battling this problem in our region, but
they still need more resources. In our appropriations process, we have
directed more resources for our regional task forces. I have personally
talked to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is very familiar
with this MS-13 problem, having been a U.S. attorney in the Maryland
region.
Our regional task force is comprised of 13 local, State and Federal
law enforcement agencies, and the task force has a three-pronged
approach: education, intervention and prevention, and enforcement. We
need to provide support on all three of these fronts.
I witnessed firsthand the exhausting work of the task force; the
technology they utilize on the streets that was able to immediately
identify just with fingerprints the background of this gang member that
they were able to arrest; the detailed knowledge they have of our
communities and our neighborhoods; the positive relationships they have
with the people in these communities, the very people that are being
victimized; and the challenges they face with this problem that has
returned to our area.
That is why I sponsored H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act, with my colleagues, so it will provide additional tools to
law enforcement. It will ensure that when ICE positively identifies a
known alien gang member, they may act immediately. This legislation
identifies gang membership and participation in gang activity as
grounds for inadmissibility and removability. We don't have to wait
until these brutal killers wield their machetes or leave another body
on a children's playground.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. This is a marked improvement over current law where
ICE must wait for specific convictions before removal proceedings can
commence. The bill preserves, as my colleague has already identified,
all the due process and appellate rights afforded to any alien facing
deportation.
An immigration judge must be convinced that the evidence in the
record supports the finding. I encourage support of this legislation
today, which will strengthen and enforce our laws against known violent
gang members. I also will continue to work with my colleagues on other
matters, such as the bill I introduced earlier this summer, to provide
additional resources to our regional gang task forces for their
education, intervention, and enforcement efforts.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said about this body that if you invent a
nice enough title for a bill, it doesn't matter what you write in the
bill because all people know is what the title is. This bill is a good
example of that.
Who is in favor of criminal alien gangs?
No one. But this bill has received no committee consideration in
which the questions could have been asked and the answers given to make
sure that the bill would do what its sponsors say it does.
But this legislation wouldn't provide decent protections against gang
violence. It would shred due process protections and would allow
deportation of innocent immigrants based on the flimsiest of evidence.
It would establish a Star Chamber-like process for designating
criminal gangs that would provide virtually no opportunity for them to
contest such a designation. Once a group is designated as a gang, an
immigrant who is determined to be a member of that gang--determined
under undefined procedures and standards--would be almost assured of
being deported and would be subject to mandatory detention while
awaiting removal.
The procedures under this bill would be laughable if they did not
have such deadly consequences for so many innocent people. Suppose
there are some people in my neighborhood that I think are up to no
good. Maybe I have good evidence that they are committing crimes, or
maybe I just don't like them. Either way, I submit a tip to Homeland
Security that the group is engaged in activity that qualifies as a
criminal gang under this bill.
Then, based on undefined and unknown procedures, the DHS can
designate that group as a criminal gang. In doing so, it would amass
some sort of administrative record, which is also completely undefined
in the bill, but we know it can include secret evidence. No notice
would be given to the group that is under review, and no opportunity
would be given to present evidence contesting the designation; no
exculpatory evidence.
After designation, there is a process for judicial review; but unless
the group has the habit of scouring the Federal Register, it would have
no idea that it has been labeled a gang and that it needs to go to
court in 30 days. If, somehow, the group does learn of its designation,
it has just 30 days to contest it, and only in a Federal Court of
Appeals in Washington, D.C.
That review, however, would be based entirely on the administrative
record amassed by the government. The group would have no opportunity
to submit evidence to rebut the designation, which renders the entire
review process meaningless. That is not due process under the
Constitution. That is a sort of stacked process you would expect in a
banana republic or in Russia.
It gets even worse. Under this bill, any alien is deportable if he or
she is or has been a member of a designated gang or has participated in
the gang's activities, knowing that would further its illegal activity.
But who determines that a person is a member of a gang? By what
procedure? In what forum or what court? Using what standard?
The bill, given the Goodlatte amendment, does not say.
A person need not have been convicted or even charged with a crime to
be deportable under this bill; and even when they are in removal
proceedings, they would not be permitted to challenge the gang
designation that landed them in those proceedings. Thus, we will have
people deported on the basis of an unfair and secret process, with no
notice and no meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for the
deportation. That turns due process completely on its head.
Keeping out members of MS-13 and other deadly gangs is a worthy goal,
[[Page H7392]]
but this bill would not do that. It would have disastrous consequences
for thousands of people each year who may or may not be members of a
gang, who may or may not have any evidence against them, who will
inevitably be caught up in its hash and overbroad provisions.
Mr. Speaker, just last week, President Trump upended the lives of
800,000 DREAMers who now face the possibility of being dragged away
from the only country they know. Our highest priority should be
providing these young, undocumented Americans the legal status they
need to continue serving our Nation and being productive members of
their communities.
I notice that the Speaker has said that, while he supports relief for
the DREAMers, that the bill has to go through a committee.
Why didn't this bill have to go through a committee?
Instead, the Republican majority seeks to distract us from the plight
of the DREAMers by returning to its mass deportation agenda based on
the fear and dehumanization of immigrants.
This bill brings shame upon this House and this Nation's tradition of
due process and fundamental fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and
unconscionable legislation.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I know we spent a lot of time in committee
talking about a lot of different issues, but maybe the gentleman
forgets that we had 3 whole days of hearings on the Davis-Oliver Act,
which this bill was included in, and many arguments were made against
the Davis-Oliver Act. Most of the arguments that are being made today
were not made against this portion of the act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King).
{time} 0945
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho
for yielding. I certainly commend Mrs. Comstock for the outstanding job
she has done on this.
I stand here in strong support of this bill. It is absolutely
essential that this Congress does everything it can to eradicate and
destroy MS-13. It would be shameful not to.
MS-13 has turned my district into killing fields. In the last year
and a half, 17 innocent young people have been slaughtered with
machetes and knives by MS-13. These are all young people, and these are
children of legal and illegal immigrants documented and undocumented.
It is the immigrant community that is being turned into a chamber of
horrors by MS-13. Children are afraid to go to school; their parents
are afraid to allow their kids to go out at night.
There have been 270 arrests in the last year alone. MS-13 is
terrorizing communities in my district within 15 to 20 minutes of my
home.
I am proud that this bill has been endorsed by the Sergeants
Benevolent Association of the NYPD.
Also, when I talk about 17 murders, it is exactly 1 year ago this
week that two young teenage girls, Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas, both
constituents of mine, were found slaughtered, their bodies desecrated,
mutilated, and torn apart by MS-13 because they happened to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time--no gang connections, nothing whatsoever.
So this is something which has required extensive coordination
between the Suffolk County Police Department, ICE, Homeland Security
Investigations, Homeland Security, FBI task forces, and the U.S.
Attorney's Office all working around the clock to try to eradicate this
evil.
But more has to be done, and that is what this bill is about. We
cannot allow gang members to be taking advantage of loopholes in the
immigration laws. To me, nothing could be more shameful than for us not
to do our job. Nothing would be more violative of our role under the
Constitution to protect people from all enemies foreign and domestic
than for us not to pass legislation such as this. This is absolutely
essential. This isn't theoretical, and this is not hypothetical.
For those who are concerned about immigrants and those who are
concerned about DACA--and I support DACA--and those who are supportive
of the helpless in our society, how can you take any action which would
prevent us from going after MS-13? MS-13 is a violent and vicious gang,
and if we don't stand together as one, if we continue to make
hypothetical arguments or a parade of horribles, we are subjecting and
putting more young people--innocent young people--documented and
undocumented, in the line of fire and putting them into the killing
fields.
I applaud the President, I applaud the Attorney General, and I also
support the Democratic leaders in Suffolk County, all of whom have come
together in a bipartisan effort to stamp out MS-13. But we must do
more. This bill is a major step in that direction. I am proud to
support it. I am proud to stand with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Labrador, and
Mrs. Comstock in doing this.
This is reality. This isn't make-believe. This isn't something we can
dream about, something that may go bad. This is going bad day after day
after day in my district and districts throughout the country. These
are animals. They need to be eradicated from our society, and this bill
is a major step in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the bill and urge its
adoption.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this bill was indeed
part of the Davis-Oliver Act which did go through the Judiciary
Committee. But that bill was over 200 pages long. It had many problems.
It was impossible to address all the problems. We would be there for a
month if we had gone through line by line. It was not a good process.
If it had been perfect, I would note that Chairman Goodlatte would not
have had to have his amendment to remove the reason-to-believe standard
that was in the bill that was part of the Davis-Oliver Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is as much a criminal injustice bill as it is
immigration. Serving as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, I am both a
believer in the dangers of MS-13 as many of my colleagues are. I offer
concern and recognition of their violence.
That is why this bill should be defeated because something as crucial
as this does not need to be litigated in the courts. You make a bill
with such insufferable frailties constitutionally without
bipartisanship, without any hearings, and without the ability to set a
legal standard of what is the definition or the understanding of a
criminal gang.
This is done in consultation with the Attorney General, who is an
opponent of any form of immigration, legal or undocumented, consulting
with the Homeland Security Secretary of which I am a member of that
committee, and the dominant factor will be the Attorney General talking
to the Homeland Security Secretary about criminal elements. Who do you
think will prevail? How many will be swept up in this expansive,
nonorganized, nonorderly, and non-due process legislation?
The frailties of this bill are the very number, if you will, five.
Five persons can be called a criminal gang. Mothers and fathers,
listen: innocent behavior of young people tattooed or having friends
could be called a criminal gang. Yes, individuals who have status could
be deported, an ongoing group, club, organizations, or associations.
They have expanded this, maybe high school kids who may gather to smoke
marijuana. Maybe this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that
aid undocumented immigrants.
All we are asking is let us work together to get a bill that fights
MS-13, not fights innocent people. The bill defines criminal gang, a
group that has been designated as a criminal gang, as I said, by the
DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General. It is unwise
and irresponsible to not have the kind of organized framework.
That happens from not having committee hearings and markups. It
happens when you don't engage police officers in a wide breadth from
many different aspects.
I am disappointed that this bill did not have the opportunity to have
the
[[Page H7393]]
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
have input, and that would have been done if we had a full hearing or a
hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, or a
hearing in the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations
Subcommittee, or a hearing in the full committee as I mentioned.
It lacks a constitutional construct. It begins to criminalize for
associations. We are heading down a terribly unsophisticated road.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention's recent report, nationally, 48,000 juvenile offenders were
held in residential facilities. We don't need to add more, but here is
the outcome: they are not just held, they are deported.
Again, I emphasize to my colleagues that the ages could be very young
because there are no firewalls dealing with the ages that might be
swept up in this wide sweep of those who deserve to be responded to in
a way that is not this bill. This bill pretends to be wrapping up and
rounding up bad actors that are undocumented immigrants. That is the
big calling card. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote
against this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``Fact check: Immigration
doesn't bring crime into U.S.,'' by PBS NewsHour.
[From the PBS Newshour, Feb. 3, 2017]
Fact Check: Immigration Doesn't Bring Crime Into U.S. Data Say
(By The Conversation)
Editor's note: In his first week in office, President
Donald Trump showed he intends to follow through on his
immigration promises. A major focus of his campaign was on
removing immigrants who, he said, were increasing crime in
American communities.
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National
Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by
undocumented immigrants and said:
``They are being released by the tens of thousands into our
communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or
resources . . . We are going to build a great border wall to
stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence,
and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.''
Now as president, he has signed executive orders that
restrict entry of immigrants from seven countries into the
U.S. and authorize the construction of a wall along the U.S.
border with Mexico. He also signed an order to prioritize the
removal of ``criminal aliens'' and withhold federal funding
from ``sanctuary cities.''
But, what does research say about how immigration impacts
crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for
answers.
Across 200 metropolitan areas
(By Robert Adelman, University at Buffalo, and Lesley Reid, University
of Alabama)
Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring
assumption that increases in immigration are associated with
increases in crime.
Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has
widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early
20th-century presidential commissions that found no backing
for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are
always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates
that immigrants commit fewer crimes, on average, than native-
born Americans.
Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations
have lower crime rates, on average, than those with minimal
immigrant populations.
In a paper published this year in the Journal of Ethnicity
in Criminal Justice, we, along with our colleagues Gail
Markle, Saskia Weiss and Charles Jaret, investigated the
immigration-crime relationship.
We analyzed census data spanning four decades from 1970 to
2010 for 200 randomly selected metropolitan areas, which
include center cities and surrounding suburbs. Examining data
over time allowed us to assess whether the relationship
between immigration and crime changed with the broader U.S.
economy and the origin and number of immigrants.
The most striking finding from our research is that for
murder, robbery, burglary and larceny, as immigration
increased, crime decreased, on average, in American
metropolitan areas. The only crime that immigration had no
impact on was aggravated assault. These associations are
strong and stable evidence that immigration does not cause
crime to increase in U.S. metropolitan areas, and may even
help reduce it.
There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why
more immigration leads to less crime. The most common
explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by
revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant
communities and generating economic growth.
Across 20 years of data
(By Charis E. Kubrin, University of California, Irvine, and Graham
Ousey, College of William and Mary)
For the last decade, we have been studying how immigration
to an area impacts crime.
Across our studies, one finding remains clear: Cities and
neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have
lower rates of crime and violence, all else being equal.
Our research also points to the importance of city context
for understanding the immigration-crime relationship. In one
study, for example, we found that cities with historically
high immigration levels are especially likely to enjoy
reduced crime rates as a result of their immigrant
populations.
Findings from our most recent study, forthcoming in the
inaugural issue of The Annual Review of Criminology, only
strengthen these conclusions.
We conducted a meta-analysis, meaning we systematically
evaluated available research on the immigration-crime
relationship in neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas
across the U.S. We examined findings from more than 50
studies published between 1994 and 2014, including studies
conducted by our copanelists, Adelman and Reid.
Our analysis of the literature reveals that immigration has
a weak crime-suppressing effect. In other words, more
immigration equals less crime.
There were some individual studies that found that with an
increase in immigration, there was an increase in crime.
However, there were 2.5 times as many findings that showed
immigration was actually correlated with less crime. And, the
most common finding was that immigration had no impact on
crime.
The upshot? We find no evidence to indicate that
immigration leads to more crime and it may, in fact, suppress
it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, opposing this, in particular, I would
like to add this letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights and a letter from the American Immigration Lawyers
Association.
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2017.
Oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act''
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, I am writing to express our
opposition to H.R. 3697, which creates new, sweeping grounds
for barring entry to or deporting immigrants based on the
mere suspicion of gang affiliation. We oppose H.R. 3697 for
the following reasons:
It would subject people who have never committed a crime to
deportation, creating a new definition of ``criminal gang''
that is unworkably vague and could cover a wide range of
organizations ranging from churches to fraternities to
political groups. It shifts the burden to individuals to
prove they did not know they were affiliated with a gang that
committed qualifying offenses, even though proving such a
negative is often impossible.
It would expand the use of mandatory, no-bond detention to
people facing removal under the bill, even if they have not
been convicted of any criminal offenses.
Deportations based on suspected gang membership or
affiliation would likely rely on flawed gang databases, which
are rife with inconsistent definitions, improper
documentation procedures, and inadequate safeguards.
Creating a new ground of deportability for suspected gang
members is also unnecessary, because the government already
has enough tools and resources to deport such individuals.
Most states and the federal government also have laws that
punish or enhance sentences for individuals suspected of
being gang members, recruiting gang members, or committing
crimes while in a gang. In addition, DHS has long prioritized
its resources to target suspected gang members for
deportation.
H.R. 3697 will disproportionately harm younger immigrants--
particularly unaccompanied minors, some of whom flee their
home countries to escape gang violence, forced drug
trafficking, and sexual violence, and who are at high risk of
being coerced to participate in criminal activity. It will
also indiscriminately bar these immigrants from asylum,
withholding of removal, or other forms of humanitarian
relief.
Only a week after the elimination of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, we are deeply
disappointed that Congress's first legislative response is to
further erode due process protections for immigrants and put
them at an even greater risk of deportation. We urge you to
oppose H.R. 3697.
Sincerely,
Vanita Gupta,
President & CEO.
____
American Immigration
Lawyers Association.
AILA Recommends VOTE NO on H.R. 3697--Revised to Include Goodlatte
Amendment, 9/13/2017--``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act''
As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration
lawyers and law professors, AILA recommends that Members of
Congress oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member
Removal Act.'' The bill is scheduled to come before the House
Rules Committee on September 12th and to the floor in the
days immediately thereafter.
[[Page H7394]]
While Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte claims that H.R. 3697 is
a ``common sense bill to protect our communities,'' in fact
the bill will do just the opposite: undermine due process and
enable the Trump Administration to deport massive numbers of
foreign nationals who pose no threat to our communities or
national security. The bill is overbroad and provides
government officials with new, expansive powers to detain,
deport, and block noncitizens from the United States
regardless of whether that individual is suspected of,
charged with, or convicted of any specific crime, or whether
the individual poses any risk to public safety. The bill does
not advance its purported public safety goals, and moreover
will place the lives of asylum seekers and other vulnerable
individuals at greater risk of harm.
At a time when our nation urgently needs Congress to reform
our immigration laws, its leadership has chosen instead to
scapegoat immigrants and grant far-reaching enforcement
powers to the government that will result in abuse and
overreach. More than four years have passed since the Senate
passed a comprehensive reform bill. During that time, the
House has refused, and still refuses, to address the needs of
families and businesses waiting in lengthy backlogs for visas
and green cards. The House has yet to bring to a vote a bill
that provides a solution for Dreamers and other unauthorized
persons. American families, businesses and communities need
reform that will strengthen America. H.R. 3697 takes our
country in the wrong direction and should be rejected.
Below is a list of the most harmful provisions in H.R.
3697.
H.R. 3697 creates a sweeping, overly-broad definition of
``criminal gang'' in immigration law (Section 2(a)). The bill
defines ``criminal gang'' as a group, club or association of
five or more people who, within the last five years, had or
has as one of its primary purposes the commission of a wide
range of conduct including any federally defined felony drug
offense, harboring of immigrants (under INA Sec. 274), the
use of expired identification documents, or obstruction of
justice.
The bill's over-inclusive definition imposes criminal
liability on non-criminal associations, creating the illusion
of a gang where none in fact exists. Under this bill, many
groups could qualify as criminal gangs including a church
group which elects to offer ``sanctuary'' to an undocumented
immigrant or a fraternity whose members use expired
identification documents to purchase liquor.
This definition of ``criminal gang'' is broader than the
existing federal criminal law sentencing enhancement for
``criminal street gang'' in 18 U.S.C Sec. 521(a). The gang
definition in H.R. 3697 is also far broader than most state
law definitions of criminal gangs. Moreover, INA Sec. 101(53)
permits the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the
Attorney General, to use the above criteria to designate a
``criminal gang.''
H.R. 3697 adds inadmissibility and deportability grounds
that violate due process (Sections 2(b) and 2(c)). H.R. 3697
enables an immigration official to deny admission to a
noncitizen if the official has ``reason to believe'' the
person is or has ever been a member of a ``criminal gang'' or
participated in activities associated with such group. The
``reason to believe'' standard is a low evidentiary standard
and does not require a conviction or even an arrest
Under this low standard, the bill will heighten the risk
that non-dangerous people will be incorrectly and unfairly
classified as gang members. These provisions authorize
government officials to target people for their mere
association with groups considered to be dangerous rather
than for the person's own specific conduct. Authorizing guilt
by association has been shown to lead law enforcement to
engage in discriminatory enforcement and to depend on
unreliable factors as tattoos, style of dress, ethnic
background, or neighborhood associations. Under this bill, an
immigration official may wrongly label a minor as a gang
member for do nothing more than living in a neighborhood with
a large number of immigrants and spending time with a
suspected gang member or for displaying the flag of his home
country.
Goodlatte amendment: The original version of H.R. 3697
submitted to Rules Committee would have allowed this low
``reason to believe'' standard to apply not only to
admissions but also to deportations of any noncitizen,
including lawful permanent residents. An amendment offered by
Chairman Goodlatte that is now included in the bill removes
``the reason to believe'' standard with respect to
deportation. Even with this change, the bill would authorize
immigration officials to deport lawful permanent residents
that are associated with a group labeled a ``criminal gang,''
including a group that is wrongfully designated as a gang. As
revised by the Goodlatte Amendment, the bill still applies
the ``reason to believe'' standard to every individual who is
seeking admission--which constitutes the vast majority of
those who are targeted for enforcement.
H.R. 3697 imposes mandatory detention on anyone, including
lawful permanent residents, that an immigration official
deems a member of a criminal gang (Sections 2(e) and 2(i)).
This provision requires ICE to detain a person regardless of
whether that person actually poses a danger to the community
Moreover, H.R. 3697 provides no opportunity for the person to
appear before a judge to request a custody determination--
also known as a bond hearing. In this regard, the bill
completely eliminates an immigration Judge's review of the
officer's decision--a critical component of due process that
prevents unfair government deprivation of liberty.
Any of the people who could be wrongfully labeled as
criminal gang members, innocent youth on the street and
church members, will be subject to automatic unreviewable
detention under this bill. Ensuring that no one is wrongfully
detained by the government is a hallmark of American values
and the Constitution. This bill tramples upon those
principles.
H.R. 3697 threatens protection for vulnerable populations
(Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(h)). H.R. 3697 not only gives broad
power to immigration officials to designate harmless people
as gang members, but it also renders people merely suspected
of gang association ineligible for humanitarian protection
such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, and Special
Immigrant Juvenile Status. This bill will prevent bona fide
refugees from seeking legal protection in the United States,
including children fleeing forced gang recruitment and other
victims of abuse encountered by gang members in their home
country. This bill could be used to deny these children
protection and safe haven in the U.S., deporting them back to
their persecutors in violation of U.S. and international
legal protections.
America has always been a beacon of hope for those fleeing
persecution and oppression. H.R. 3697 will extinguish that
beacon by granting extensive powers to the government to
detain and deport people who seek protection. AILA urges
Congress not to pass legislation that undermines due process
protections and would further advance mass deportations of
immigrants and other foreign nationals.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This clearly says this is not a bill against crime,
it is a deportation bill.
Save our children, Mr. Speaker. Let's do something different and
defeat the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien
Gang Member Removal Act of 2017''.
This bill amends the INA to now include a definition for criminal
street 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 under INA 274 (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.
This bill also defines ``criminal gang'': a group that has been
designated as a criminal gang by the DHS Secretary in consultation with
the Attorney General.
I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because 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 (1) is constitutionally unsound; (2) has a very low
standard of proof; and (3) will result in a sweeping effect among many
innocent individuals who have not committed any crime, and thus, raises
due process and racial profile concerns.
First, this bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland
Security is to determine its designation of a ``criminal street gang''.
I offered an amendment that 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 for associations then we are heading down
a terribly dark road, particularly with youths. Statistics show that
the brain does not fully develop until the age of 25. To punish them
for mere association based on unsubstantiated evidence is 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, we would add to that alarming
number, and further complicates mass incarceration.
Second, the government's mere belief that someone is associated with
a criminal gang is sufficient. Given the need for the Department of
Homeland Security to come in and deport
[[Page H7395]]
any individual, the bar must be higher than mere suspicion and/or
belief. There must be a clear and convincing standard under these
circumstances.
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.
Even 13 or 14 year old juveniles that the government may believe are
engaging in marijuana use, other drugs, or have association with
criminal gangs would be subject to this bill's penalty.
Third, this bill have a sweeping effect given its vague definition
and overbroad targets for those who may harbor certain aliens and/or
associate with criminal gang members.
This bill has a discriminatory effect in targeting the immigrant
community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises due process
and racial profiling concerns.
Criminal gangs are very complex and are not exclusive to the
immigrant community.
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 moneymaking activities,
which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human
trafficking, and fraud.
Strikingly, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a
significantly larger percentage was non illegal immigrants, unlike the
message purported in this bill.
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 gang groups. We could
go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group.
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.
My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this
bill. In its current form, it 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 bill.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I agree. We should save our children. We
need to start deporting some criminal gang members.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho and the
chair of our subcommittee for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3697, the
Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
Transnational criminal gangs have declared war on the United States.
Their tactics of intimidation and unspeakable mutilation and killing
have permeated most every part of our country, including multiple
instances in my own district. Most recently in Bedford County,
Virginia, a young man was killed by alien members of MS-13.
The Department of Homeland Security reports an ever-growing number of
criminal aliens joining international gangs, such as MS-13, which alone
has over 10,000 members within our borders. Whether these criminals
came to this country illegally as unaccompanied minors, adults, or have
valid visas or even green cards, it is time to send the message that
this behavior will simply not be tolerated.
Yet current immigration law includes no provision allowing for the
removal of criminal gang members based on their membership in dangerous
gangs or participation in gang activities. The result is
unconscionable. ICE must sit on the sidelines and wait for known gang
members to be arrested and convicted of specific offenses before
removal proceedings may commence. Of course, with many victims and
witnesses too petrified of retaliation against them and their families
to cooperate with police, many gang members are never convicted of
their crimes.
This legislation provides a crucial tool so that ICE can seek to
remove alien gang members before they are able to extort businesses and
murder innocent Americans.
In addition, this bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to
designate organizations as criminal gangs utilizing the same
transparent procedures used by the Secretary of State to designate
foreign terrorist organizations. Finally, the bill ensures that
criminal alien gang members cannot receive asylum and be released back
onto our streets able to resume their criminal activities while being
eligible for a vast array of Federal benefits.
Eradicating the death grip that transnational criminal alien gangs
hold over many of our communities, especially immigrant communities, is
an important piece of immigration reform. I am pleased that this bill,
which stems from legislation that the House has approved in the past
and which has been approved by the Judiciary Committee in multiple
Congresses, is being considered today.
Now, I want to address the allegation that this bill targets priests,
nuns, and garage band members. It is preposterous. This bill
deliberately includes the longstanding Federal criminal offenses for
alien smuggling as predicates for criminal gang activity. Coyotes and
other criminal gangs make billions of dollars and put countless lives
at risk through their alien smuggling activities.
As former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who emigrated to the United
States from Latin America as a child, stated: ``Smuggling aliens across
our borders is a dangerous business. All too often, people entrust
their lives to smugglers, only to die in the broiling desert, or
suffocate in the back of locked, airless trucks while the smugglers
profit.''
``These smuggling rings, which facilitate illegal entry into the
United States and mercilessly exploit human beings for money, are a
danger to immigrants and a threat to our national security. . . .''
The Democrats are engaging in a huge amount of obfuscation. In the
past, House Democrats claimed the House passed legislation that would
have strengthened Federal alien smuggling laws, would have had the
effect of putting priests and nuns at risk of prosecution. The
Democrats' clear implication was that these problems didn't exist under
then-current law which remains current law.
Let me quote. Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee,
including John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Sheila Jackson
Lee, they stated that the bill then under consideration goes far beyond
increasing penalties for alien smuggling and jeopardizes the well-being
of millions of Americans, neighbors, family members, faith
institutions, and others who live and work with undocumented
immigrants.
Former Speaker Pelosi, the current minority leader, stated: ``Under
the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling,''--the bill--``it
could make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers,
rabbis, and social service workers who provide assistance and acts of
charity to those in need.''
The Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't argue one day that
we can't change current law because that would result in putting
priests and nuns at risk and argue the next day that, without any
evidence, current law already puts them at risk. To add to the
hypocrisy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by
voice vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Virginia an
additional 2 minutes.
[[Page H7396]]
Mr. GOODLATTE. So to add to the controversy, the House Democrats
supported an amendment which passed by voice vote to add human
smuggling to the list of predicate acts under the Federal money
laundering statute.
{time} 1000
The Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
simply do not target clergy and others who do not make distinctions
based on immigration status when serving those in spiritual or material
need.
The use of such laws against religious organizations and other
humanitarian groups has been practically nonexistent. Of course, as in
the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, when religious organizations
engage in the smuggling of illegal aliens into the United States, they
would be subject to prosecution, just as anyone else would be.
This bill is based upon the same precedent that has been passed
through this House by voice vote dealing with human smuggling. It is
time to apply the same standard to alien gang members who are
perpetrating violence not just on people traveling to the United
States, as in the case of human smuggling, but on the citizens of
virtually every State in the Union.
The murders that have been outlined by Mr. King of New York, Mrs.
Comstock of Virginia, Mr. Labrador of Idaho, and others are taking
place all across the country because we simply are not removing from
this country as expeditiously as possible members of gangs like MS-13.
It is time to get about doing that, and this bill does that.
I want to commend Representative Barbara Comstock; Representative
Peter King; and the chairman of our Immigration and Border Security
Subcommittee, Representative Raul Labrador, for their work on this
important bill.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3697.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an analysis entitled:
``Harboring: Overview of the Law,'' prepared by the Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, Inc.
[From the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.]
Harboring: Overview of the Law
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits
individuals from concealing, shielding, or harboring
unauthorized individuals who come into and remain in the
United States. Under the law it is a criminal offense
punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who:
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien
has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in
violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from
detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from
detection, such alien in any place, including any building or
any means of transportation. INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8
U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the ``harboring
provision'' or ``Section 1324 (a)''].
The Harboring Prohibition Applies to Everyone
The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those
individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented
immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented
immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by
the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly
harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States
v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v.
Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 538
U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74
(2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d
1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d
1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063
(1978).
What Are the Elements of Harboring?
To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the
government must prove the following in most jurisdictions
``(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in
violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored,
or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the
defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien
entered or remained in the United States in violation of the
law, and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially
facilitate the alien remaining in the United States
illegally.'' Shum, 496 F.3d at 391-392 (quoting United States
v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F 3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert
denied, 546 U.S. 1097 (2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit has rejected the fourth element asserting
that the phrase ``conduct tending substantially to
facilitate'' is a judicial addition to the statute that is
unnecessary for a conviction because the statute requires no
specific degree of assistance. United States v. Xiang Hui Ye,
588 F.3d 411, 415-416 (7th Cir. 2009).
What Actions Constitute Harboring?
Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish
the ``harboring'' of undocumented individuals, it never
defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes
``harboring'' has been left to the courts. As shown below,
the federal courts have not settled on one uniform
definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have
adopted their own definition of ``harboring.''
Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an
immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally and that prevents
the authorities from detecting the individual's unlawful
presence (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing
shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false
documentation, or warnings about impending investigations
that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in
the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit)
Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an
immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally (U.S. Courts of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors,
and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known
undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to
stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him.
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)
Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented
individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)
Explanation of Harboring Through Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In the influential case, United States v. Lopez, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went through the
legislative history of the harboring provision and stated
that the term harbor ``was intended to encompass conduct
tending substantially to facilitate an alien's `remaining in
the United States illegally,' provided that the person
charged has knowledge of the immigrant's unlawful status.''
521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995
(1975).
In this case, Mr. Lopez owned at least six homes in Nassau
County, New York, where he operated safe havens for
undocumented individuals. Mr. Lopez knew that the people
staying in his homes were undocumented. Each person paid Mr.
Lopez $15 per week to live in his houses. In many cases,
people received the address for a particular house before
they left their home countries, and, upon crossing the border
illegally, they proceeded directly to the house. Mr. Lopez
also helped these individuals obtain jobs by completing work
applications and transporting them to and from work. He
arranged sham marriages for many so that they could appear to
be in the U.S. in lawful status. With a warrant, immigration
authorities searched six of Lopez's homes and found twenty-
seven undocumented individuals. He was charged with harboring
illegal immigrants.
Mr. Lopez argued that the mere providing of shelter to
undocumented immigrants does not constitute harboring. Id. at
439. He argued that to constitute harboring the conduct must
be part of the process of smuggling immigrants into the U.S.
or facilitating the immigrants' illegal entry into the U.S.
Id. The circuit court noted that he essentially argued that
to constitute harboring the sheltering would have to be
provided either clandestinely or for the purposes of
sheltering the immigrants from the authorities. Id.
The Second Circuit rejected these arguments. It held that
the statute criminalizes conduct that tends substantially to
facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States
illegally. Id. at 441. The circuit court found that Mr.
Lopez's conduct did just that. It pointed out that Mr. Lopez
had a large number of undocumented immigrants living at his
houses; they obtained the addresses and, upon entering the
U.S., proceeded to those houses; Mr. Lopez provided
transportation for them to and from work; and, he helped
arrange sham marriages. Id. The Second Circuit did not
require that Mr. Lopez provide the shelter clandestinely nor
that he shield the illegal immigrants from detection by
immigration authorities Id.
The case of United States v. Kim also is instructive on the
meaning of harboring. 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cu 1999). It states
that harboring within the meaning of Section 1324(a)
``encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an
alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent
government authorities from detecting [the immigrant's]
unlawful presence.'' Id. at 574. In this case, Mr. Myung Ho
Kim owned and operated a garment-manufacturing business
called ``Sewing Masters'' in New York City. He employed a
number of undocumented workers, including Nancy Fanfar.
During the course of her employment, Mr. Kim instructed Ms.
Fanfar to bring in new papers with a different name that
would indicate that she had work authorization. He instructed
Ms. Fanfar to change her name and remain in his employ a
second time, even while he was being investigated by
immigration authorities.
According to the circuit court, Mr. Kim's actions
constituted harboring, for they were designed to help Ms.
Fanfar remain in his employ and to prevent her continued
presence from being detected by the authorities. Thus, his
conduct substantially facilitated her ability to remain in
the U.S. illegally in prohibition of the harboring provision.
Id. at 574-575.
[[Page H7397]]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The Third Circuit also has considered what conduct
constitutes ``shielding,'' ``harboring,'' and ``concealing''
within the meaning of Section 1324(a). Like the Second
Circuit, it determined that these terms encompass conduct
``tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in
the U.S. illegally'' and [that] prevent[s] government
authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence.
``U.S. v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008); see also
Delno-Mocci v. Connolly Props, 672 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir.
2012), U.S. v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir.
2009); U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1003 (3d Cir. 2008).
In United States v. Ozcelik, the defendant knew that the
individual remained in the U.S. illegally and advised him to
``lay low'' and ``stay away'' from the address he had on file
with the government. 527 F.3d at 100. However, Mr. Ozcelik
did not actively attempt to intervene or delay an impending
immigration investigation and the Third Circuit held that
advising an individual without legal status to stay out of
trouble and to keep a low profile does not tend substantially
to facilitate their remaining in the country. Id. at 100-01.
The circuit court reasserted that shielding or harboring a
person without status ordinarily includes affirmative conduct
such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about
how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about
impending investigations that facilitates a person's
continuing illegal presence in the United States. See Id. at
99.
In United States v. Silveus, the Third Circuit held that
cohabitation, along with reasonable control of premises
during an immigration agent's inquiry regarding the
whereabouts of the suspected undocumented individual, does
not constitute harboring without sufficient evidence that a
defendant's conduct substantially facilitated the
individual's remaining in the U.S. illegally and prevented
authorities from detecting his/her unlawful presence. 542
F.3d at 1002-04. In this case, the agent never saw the
suspected undocumented individual, but only heard the
apartment door slam, heard some bushes break, and as he
approached, saw the defendant shut her front door. Id. at
1002. The defendant spoke to the agent through her window and
when asked if anybody had run out of her apartment, she said
``I don't know.'' Id. at 1003. The circuit court determined
that the act of shutting a door as an agent rounded the
corner and her subsequent reply to the agent's question did
not establish ``harboring'' under Section 1324(a) because it
only led to speculation as to the suspect's presence. Id. at
1004.
In United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, the Third Circuit
reaffirmed that shielding an undocumented person includes
affirmative conduct (such as providing shelter,
transportation, direction about how to obtain false
documents, or warnings about impending investigations) that
facilitates the person's continuing illegal presence in the
U.S. 572 F.3d at 122. The circuit court held that the
defendant's actions (taking undocumented people from the U.S.
to the Dominican Republic in his private plane) were
undertaken for the purpose of removing them from the U.S.,
not helping them remain in the U.S. Id. It noted that the
goal of Section 1324 is to prevent undocumented individuals
from entering or remaining illegally in the U.S. by punishing
those that shield or harbor. Id. It asserted that punishing a
defendant for helping individuals without legal status leave
the U.S. would be contrary to that goal. Id.
More recently, the Third Circuit reiterated that
``harboring'' requires some act that obstructs the
government's ability to discover the undocumented person and
that it is highly unlikely that landlords renting apartments
to people lacking lawful status could, without more, satisfy
the court's definition of harboring. Delrio-Mocci, 672 F.3d
at 246 (citing Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223
(3d Cir 2010)). The circuit court reiterated that ``[r]enting
an apartment in the normal course of business is not in and
of itself conduct that prevents the government from detecting
an alien's presence.'' Id.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit's definition of harboring is broader than
the Second and Third Circuits. It rejects the notion that to
be convicted of harboring a defendant's conduct must be part
of a smuggling operation or involve actions that hide
immigrants from law enforcement authorities. See De Jesus-
Batres, 410 F.3d at 162 (specific intent is not an element of
the offense of harboring). An early Fifth Circuit decision,
U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977), remains
informative.
In Cantu, immigration agents visited the restaurant owned
by Mr. Cantu because they received information that he was
employing undocumented workers. The agents wanted to question
the employees. Mr. Cantu refused admission to his restaurant
until they could provide a warrant.
While the immigration authorities waited outside for the
warrant, Mr. Cantu made arrangements with at least two of his
patrons to drive some of his undocumented employees into
town. Mr. Cantu also arranged for his employees to sit in the
restaurant and then leave the restaurant like customers. As
the employees left the restaurant, the immigration agents
approached them and questioned them about their immigration
status. The agents determined their illegal status and
arrested them.
Mr. Cantu argued that, because he did not instruct his
employees to ``hide,'' and because the employees left the
restaurant in full view of the officers, he could not be
charged with shielding immigrants from detection. He also
argued that his actions were not connected to any smuggling
activity. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Second Circuit's
Lopez decision, rejected these arguments, and determined that
Mr. Cantu's actions--instructing the employees to act like
customers so they could evade arrest--tended to facilitate
the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally. Id. at 1180.
In another Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Varkonyi,
645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981), the court cited to Lopez to
assert that the harboring statute prohibits ``any conduct
which tends to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining
in the U.S. illegally.'' Id. at 459. Mr. Varkonyi provided a
group of undocumented immigrants with steady employment at
his scrap metal yard six days a week as well as lodging at
his warehouse. On previous occasions, he had instructed and
aided the men in avoiding detection and apprehension. On the
day of their detention, Mr. Varkonyi interfered with Customs
and Border Protection agents' actions by forcibly denying
them entry to his property through physical force.
Here, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct
went well beyond mere employment and thus constituted
harboring. Id. at 459. In this case, the court pointed out
that Mr. Varkonyi knew of the immigrants' undocumented
status, he had instructed the immigrants on avoiding
detection on a prior occasion; he was providing the
immigrants with employment and lodging, he interfered with
immigration agents to protect the immigrants from
apprehension; and he was partly responsible for the escape of
one of the immigrants from custody. Id. Given these facts,
the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct, both
before and after the detention of the immigrants, was
calculated to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S.
unlawfully. Id. at 460.
In 2007, the Fifth Circuit ruled in another employment
harboring case that ``substantially facilitate'' means to
make an individual's illegal presence in the United States
substantially ``easier or less difficult.'' United States v.
Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and
quotation marks omitted). The court noted that Section
1324(a) was enacted to deter employers from hiring
unauthorized individuals and it refused to adopt a narrow
definition of ``substantially facilitate'' that undermines
Congress's purpose. Id.
In this case, Mr. Shum was vice-president of an office-
cleaning company and he employed janitors without legal
status. According to witnesses, he provided false
identifications to the workers to facilitate background
checks so that the workers could clean government office
buildings.
Ms. LOFGREN. In this legal analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration
Network, Inc., it does point out that religious persons have been
prosecuted and convicted for providing sanctuary. Opinions may differ
on whether that is a good idea or bad idea, but to say that that is an
MS-13 activity, I think we would all agree that is just crazy. That is
what this bill would do.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Demings), a freshman Member of the House whom we are so fortunate
to have. Just last year, as the chief of police, she was on the front
line in the fight against gangs.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, I spent 27 years as a law enforcement
officer. I had the honor of working my way up through the ranks to
become the chief of police. I co-chaired an antigang task force for the
State of Florida. As chief, I launched an all-out war against violent
crime. Through the hard work of a lot of good men and women, we were
able to reduce violent crime by 40 percent.
Do I take gang activity very seriously? You better believe I do. I
have the record to prove that.
The spirit of H.R. 3697, with this broad, new definition of what
constitutes a gang, has nothing, based on my experience on the ground,
to do with curtailing gang activity.
As a former law enforcement officer who has been there on the front
lines, there is no way I would vote for this law. This law targets a
group of people based on their status and does not target criminal
activity. That is what law enforcement officers do.
We all take gang activity seriously. I heard the question earlier:
Who would favor gangs? Who really would favor gangs?
I invite my colleagues on the other side to join me in continuing our
aggressive efforts to target criminal behavior, because that is really
what we want to stop--criminal behavior--and not profile or target
people. That is just not who we are.
Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H7398]]
Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of closing comments on
this bill.
I think it is a given that every Member of this body wants to do
something about gangs. I have gangs in my district. I think I heard Mr.
King speak so passionately about the problem in his district. It is a
pervasive problem.
The concern is that this bill goes far beyond targeting those gangs.
That is why we, with great reluctance, have to say we can't do this. We
can't do this.
If we wanted to target just the gangs, we wouldn't have included
language that would allow charging people who are not gang members as
gang members. We wouldn't have included provisions that the victims of
gangs would be denied asylum. Section 2(f) of the bill denies
individuals who are suspected of alleged gang membership the
opportunity to apply for asylum.
Here is the problem. In certain parts of Central America, you have
rampant gang activity. Women and girls are terribly abused. They are
beaten, turned into sex slaves, tattooed, and they escape. If that
young girl who has been the victim of that violence from gangs comes
with the tattoos, the brand that that gang put on her, and if she, as a
consequence, is reasonably suspected of being a member of the gang, she
can't get asylum. That is not what we want in the fight against MS-13.
The bill is not drafted adequately.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, in 2014, four MS-13 gang members
brutally murdered a 14-year-old boy from Texas with a machete. Just
this year, two MS-13 gang members laughed and waved at the cameras as
they faced trial in a Houston courtroom for the kidnapping, rape, and
murder of young girls. These are just two examples that reflect the
horrific and gruesome reality of what gangs across this country are
capable of.
There are as many as 100,000 gang members in my home State of Texas,
several of whom are linked to Mexican cartels, who help them distribute
drugs and traffic people and weapons. Nearly 60 percent of identified
prison gang members in Texas are serving sentences for violent crimes,
including homicide, robbery, and assault.
MS-13 is one of the most dangerous gangs in our State, with almost
500 members throughout Texas. They have been described by the Houston
police chief as a ``transnational terrorist organization,'' the ``worst
of the worst,'' and a ``cancer.'' It is State and local law enforcement
officers like him, as well gang task forces, who are on the front
lines, putting their own lives in danger to deal with these heinous
criminals.
Today, I rise in support of Mrs. Comstock's bill, which will do what
we should have been doing a long time ago, and that is giving local
entities the ability to expeditiously deport gang members who are here
illegally and ensure they never are able to come back to the United
States.
Our first job is to keep Americans safe. H.R. 3697 certainly improves
the prospects of that.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Mimi Walters of California). The
gentlewoman from California has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Idaho has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It has been mentioned that there are terrible activities being
undertaken by gang members. I don't think there is any dispute in this
body about that. Our obligation is to craft bills that will allow for
remedies for that problem in a specific, targeted, and effective way. I
think this bill falls far short in that regard.
We had mentioned earlier the great concern that has been expressed to
us by religious people across the United States about the provisions
relative to harboring. Five nuns on a religious worker visa who help
provide sanctuary for an undocumented person is a gang under this bill.
They are not MS-13.
We could craft a measure that avoids that outcome while still going
after MS-13. We didn't do that. For one thing, we didn't actually sit
down, both sides of the aisle, to work together, to reason together, to
make that happen.
I would like to note that the smuggling issue is a big problem. We
have unanimous agreement on the smuggling issue. We have worked
together, actually, with the Wilberforce Act and other acts in a
bipartisan way to deal with that. But we didn't bifurcate smuggling
from harboring in this bill. That is why the nuns and the Catholic
bishops have contacted us asking us not to support this bill.
I would like to note, just finally, that the first obligation that we
have is to keep America safe. We fail to do that if we craft language
that really is just part of a broad deportation agenda under the guise
of an antigang bill. There is great concern that is what has happened
here.
One of the elements that is referenced as a predicate for gang
activity--the five people who are working together--is that documents
are false. A lot of people are highly agitated when undocumented people
have false documents. Opinions differ. Almost every undocumented person
in the United States who works has a fake ID; otherwise, they can't get
a job.
You can agree with that, you can think it is terrible, you can think
it is maybe not so terrible. I think most of us would agree it is not
MS-13. Why would we craft this in such a way to treat that activity as
an MS-13 activity and to blow up all the procedures we have in place to
make sure that justice is done?
I hope that Members will vote against this bill. Despite the name, it
goes far beyond attacking gangs. It would drift into allowing for the
deportation of religious people and others who have done nothing
related to gang activity.
I hope that, if this bill is defeated, we can sit down, as we often
have on various items and worked collaboratively on patent reform and
other issues, and do the same on this. I hope, if this bill is
defeated, we will take the opportunity to do that.
I, for one, pledge my best efforts to come up with a measure that is
targeted and effective. This bill, unfortunately, is not.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I keep hearing again and again and again that there is
no dispute about ongoing violence or gang violence in the United
States, but what has been clear from today's argument is that our
friends on the other side just don't want to do anything about it. They
are willing to talk about the gang violence, but they don't want to
actually craft and pass legislation that does something about it.
{time} 1015
I hope it is something that the American people are listening to,
because as we have debates over the next few months about what we
should be doing with regard to immigration, I hope everyone understands
that every time we try to do something about enforcement of immigration
laws, about stopping gang violation, about stopping illegal immigration
into the United States, it is very difficult to get agreement on the
other side.
Criminal alien gang members are wreaking havoc in this country.
Without stronger tools to specifically target those aliens that
terrorize our streets, gangs will continue to grow in numbers and in
strength.
The time has come to take action and to provide a path to deportation
to those that so unabashedly seek to destroy our society.
ICE has found that ``membership of these violent transnational gangs
is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.'' Often bearing the
brunt of these gangs' violence are these very immigrant communities
that the other side claims that they want to protect.
The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes a tough approach. I
agree with that. Those gang members who have successfully evaded
prosecution through witness intimidation, employing the tactics of fear
and violence, will now be within ICE's reach. The new grounds of
removability provided by H.R. 3697 will get criminal gang members off
of our streets.
ICE's recent Operation New Dawn resulted in almost 1,100 arrests of
gang
[[Page H7399]]
members. Had H.R. 3697 been enacted prior, that number would have
almost certainly increased.
This bill is only starting the removal process, however. Make no
mistake--and there was a lot of obfuscation today about this--
immigration proceedings do not equate to deportation. The government
must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an immigration
judge that gang-related activity occurred.
As a former private immigration attorney, I have seen this process in
action, and it does work. ICE will not use this new charge as pretext,
as this ground will never be sustained by an immigration judge without
sufficient evidence.
The time for this bill is long overdue, and we cannot afford to be
distracted by extreme hypotheticals and issues not germane to what we
are discussing today.
This bill was introduced to target criminal gangs, as that term is
commonly understood, and that is what it will do once enacted. There is
no place in our country for criminal alien gang members. By removing
them from our streets, H.R. 3697 will help make our communities safer.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3697 is yet another exercise in
false advertising by the Majority. Named the ``Criminal Alien Gang
Member Removal Act,'' this legislation is so overbroad that it would
lead to the deportation of immigrants with absolutely no criminal
record and would apply to individuals with no connection to gangs.
In short, this blatantly anti-immigration legislation casts a wide
and dangerous net in furtherance of President Trump's mass deportation
agenda. I say this for several reasons.
To begin with, H.R. 3967 authorizes the Trump Administration to brand
a group of immigrants a ``gang'' without requiring a conviction or even
an arrest.
In fact, it would allow individuals to be deported or denied
admission based on a mere ``belief''--however tenuous--of their
connection to unlawful activity.
In addition, the bill's definition of a ``gang'' is so broad that it
would apply to individuals who clearly are not members of criminal
gangs.
I doubt that my Republican colleagues really believe that 5 Christian
ministers providing shelter to undocumented immigrants constitute a
criminal gang.
But by voting for this measure, that's precisely what lawmakers would
turn them into. The bill instantly places such religious workers
throughout America--from nuns to rabbis, imams to priests--into the
same classification as MS-13.
Finally, we are rushing this deeply flawed legislation through the
House today while nearly 800,000 young people--800,000 law abiding
members of our communities--are facing deportation in as little as 6
months.
These are young people who are as American as any of us. They have
grown up in our communities, attended our schools, and have become our
neighbors, our teachers, first responders, doctors, and lawyers. But
because of action taken by President Trump last week, they now are
living in fear and uncertainty.
There is a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support across the
country that would allow these young people to remain in the United
States the only home most have ever known--and continue contributing to
our communities and our economy.
But that bill, the DREAM Act, has languished for years.
Nevertheless, instead of taking up the DREAM Act, we are rushing H.R.
3697 through just days after it was introduced and without any
hearings, markups, or the opportunity for amendment.
This House should stop jamming through pieces of the Trump mass
deportation plan and instead recommit itself to lifting up the young
people of our communities by passing the DREAM act.
It is what's right for our economy, our Nation and it is our moral
responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3697.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Criminal
Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
Remarkably, under current law, membership in a criminal street gang
does not in and of itself make a non-citizen inadmissible or deportable
from the United States.
This common-sense bill corrects this dangerous loophole by requiring
that criminal alien gang members be deported swiftly and never allowed
back into the United States.
It provides law enforcement with another tool in their arsenal to
combat dangerous and deadly criminal gangs--like MS-13. Criminal gangs
benefit from loopholes in our immigration laws and today we are taking
an important step to close the door to the United States for non-
citizen criminal gang members.
Over the past 12 months, several thousand criminal aliens who were
confirmed members of gangs were removed from the United States by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This year ICE is continuing
its focus on making our streets safer by removing criminal gang members
with a particular focus on MS-13 members.
It is past time that we strengthen our immigration laws, deport
criminal aliens and secure our borders. We have a duty to make America
safe for its citizens and H.R. 3697 is an important step in that
direction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 513, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Beyer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3697 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following:
SEC. __. PROTECTING INNOCENT RELIGIOUS WORKERS FROM
DEPORTATION.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may
be construed to authorize the deportation of an alien for
action taken on behalf of a religious organization whose
primary purpose is the provision of humanitarian assistance
or aid.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
I offer this amendment to recommit to reveal the flaws in the bill.
The sponsor of this bill, Mrs. Comstock and I both represent northern
Virginia, and she and I both want to eliminate gang violence. MS-13 is
a menace to society, and I endorse the goal of destroying it through
legal means, but this bill wouldn't do that.
This bill will promote widespread racial profiling. It will violate
First Amendment protections. It will expand mandatory detention of
immigrants. It will raise serious constitutional questions on judicial
review of government designation of certain groups. And it bars
humanitarian relief for individuals in violation of international
treaties.
I take gang violence and MS-13 very seriously. The young man Mrs.
Comstock referred to, found dead in a park in my city of Alexandria,
was actually found by a dear family friend. But we can do this in a
bill that doesn't promote racial profiling or violate the Constitution.
So in this motion to recommit, we offer language to get at one of the
most glaring flaws in this bill that it can go after humanitarian
workers. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act creates an overly
broad definition of a criminal gang by allowing DHS to essentially
designate any individual as a gang member.
As written, it could cover a wide range of organizations ranging from
churches to fraternities, to political groups. This will 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 individual members of a gang.
Religious workers who are engaged in immigrant ministry could be
subject to prosecution. Immigrant ministry is not smuggling in airless
trucks. In my district, we have a number of faith communities who
provide for the unemployed, the homeless, those without language.
Already, ICE swept up half a dozen men as they exited a church service.
Under this bill, the pastor could be next.
If a nun, through her work, interacts with a potential gang member,
she, by the context of this bill, could be a gang
[[Page H7400]]
member. It is not accidental that the Catholic bishops and the nuns
have written to oppose this bill. The harboring provisions are so
sweeping, the religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or
support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal
activity. And this is not transportation across the U.S. border. This
is transportation to work or to English lesson classes.
It is incredibly concerning that it would subject people who have
never committed a crime, never been arrested, never been indicted, to
deportation; and it would apply retroactively. Indeed, mere suspicion
of involvement in harboring could classify individuals as gang members.
So it is very obvious here that humanitarian exemption is needed, but
that is not the only concern with this bill language. The overly broad
definition would empower immigrant authorities to conduct dragnet
sweeps of Latino communities and other communities of color.
Media reports make it 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 in 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 expansive language
could and will sweep up people who have committed no criminal activity
whatsoever.
As a representative of Virginia, a State with a long and troubled
history with race, I think we need to be very careful before we
implement policies that allow for structural racism. This bill has many
more flaws, which general debate covered. But I want to be clear,
before we pass this bill and start locking up nuns and priests and
other religious workers, we should not continue this one-dimensional
conversation on immigration policy.
We cannot focus only on enforcement and a mass deportation agenda. It
doesn't fix our immigration system. We have got to work on
comprehensive immigration reform, and we begin with the President's
recent decision to eliminate DACA and put Congress on the clock. We
should be acting today to protect our DREAMers. 800,000 young
immigrants'--not members of MS-13--lives depend on it. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Madam Speaker, in 2015, at an Alexandria playground in
Mr. Beyer's district, 8 miles from this Capitol, the body of a 24-year-
old man was left nearly decapitated in a grisly murder by one of the
thousands of MS-13 gang members in our country. I should also mention
that that victim was also an MS-13 gang member.
This very Capital region has the second highest number of MS-13 gang
members. Criminal alien gang members are growing in numbers in our
region around the country and wrecking havoc in my district and in this
very region. Without stronger tools to specifically target those
specific aliens--this bill targets them--that terrorize our streets,
gangs like MS-13 will then continue to grow in numbers and strength if
we aren't targeting them. The time has come to take action and provide
a path for deportation for violent criminal gang members.
ICE has found that membership of these violent transnational gangs is
comprised largely of foreign-born nationals. Often bearing the brunt of
these gangs' violence are the very immigrant communities in which they
reside. They target their own communities. We have seen that in my
region and in my district, and that is why this is so troubling.
The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act will address this. Those
gang members who have successfully evaded prosecution through witness
intimidation, employing the tactics of fear and violence will now be
within ICE's reach. The new grounds of removability provided by H.R.
3697 will help get criminal gang members off our streets.
ICE's recent Operation New Dawn has resulted in almost 1,100 arrests
of gang members. Had this bill been enacted prior, that number could
have increased. This bill is only starting the removal process,
however.
Make no mistake, regular immigration proceedings will still apply.
The government must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an
immigration judge. This bill preserves all due process and appellate
rights afforded to any alien facing deportation.
The time for this bill is long overdue. It was introduced to target
criminal gangs, as that term is commonly understood, and that is what
it will do once it is enacted.
I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote
for the base bill, H.R. 3697, and to provide ICE with the tools it
needs to keep dangerous criminal alien gang members off our streets,
out of our communities, and out of our country.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEYER. Madam 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 passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 220, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
YEAS--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
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
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)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
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
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
NAYS--220
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 (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
[[Page H7401]]
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
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
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
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)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--29
Bridenstine
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Costa
Crist
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Frankel (FL)
Garrett
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Loudermilk
Olson
Posey
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rutherford
Scalise
Sinema
Tiberi
Yoho
{time} 1050
Messrs. FARENTHOLD, LEWIS of Minnesota, and COLLINS of New York
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. PINGREE, Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mses. McCOLLUM and
SEWELL of Alabama, Messrs. KENNEDY, HOYER, GUTIERREZ, HIGGINS of New
York, and McNERNEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Judiciary Committee,
and I have never seen this bill before. Under regular order, it should
go to our committee for a hearing and for a markup. Has this bill had a
hearing and a markup in any committee, or has it just sprung on this
floor like something out of the ocean in Greek mythology?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is counting for the yeas and nays.
The gentleman's inquiry will not be entertained.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 175, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 517]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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
Carbajal
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
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
Gottheimer
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)
Kihuen
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rosen
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Russell
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
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)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--175
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
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
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
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
Carter (GA)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Costa
Crist
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Frankel (FL)
Garrett
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Loudermilk
Pelosi
Posey
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rutherford
Scalise
Tiberi
Yoho
{time} 1059
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H7402]]
____________________