[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E461-E462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2494, PROTECT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
  WITH IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3091, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE 
 WEAPON PURCHASE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 
     40, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND 
    CONDEMNING EFFORTS TO DEFUND OR DISMANTLE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                                AGENCIES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 16, 2023

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on the Rule 
offered in consideration of H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with 
Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, H.R. 3091--
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, and H. 
Con. Res. 40--Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and 
condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement 
agencies.
  It is unfortunate that this Rule in particular does not include the 
many amendments that have been offered by my Democratic Colleagues.
  As it pertains to H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with 
Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, this bill in 
particular is incredibly ill drafted and intended bill that does not 
seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement--
rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals 
who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration 
pathways rather than increasing them.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking 
to expand the scope of people who can be deported.
  It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law 
enforcement could be subject to deportation.
  Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are 
already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been 
admitted to the United States.
  We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set 
down roots and established themselves here in the United States.
  Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a 
conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the 
intention to cause harm or use violence, I would hope they would be 
willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or 
Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of 
mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed 
deportable.
  And so, my amendment offered in the Rules Committee would have 
allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone 
is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.
  As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new 
avenue to deport people with green cards.
  If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious 
offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.
  People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement 
officers are already deportable.
  Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a 
crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an 
aggravated felony and that person is deportable.
  The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving 
moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one 
year or more.
  Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there 
is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement 
officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.
  This amendment would allow the official making the final 
determination on deportation the ability to examine additional 
mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.
  The official would be able to take into account:
  if there was intent to harm;
  the severity of offense;
  if the act resulted in harm;
  the individual's military service (if any);
  how long the individual has been in the United States; and
  the individual's ties to the community.
  These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other 
adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with 
some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my 
colleagues.
  We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor 
offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:
  A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way 
of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become 
deportable.
  Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood 
transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical 
Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is 
trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have 
committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable 
under this bill.
  As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street 
and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and 
pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police 
officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed 
assault under this bill and become deportable.
  In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never 
be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.
  However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by 
admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals 
would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement 
officer and would become deportable under this bill.
  We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor 
offenses.
  If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow 
adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are 
preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this 
overbroad bill.
  Additionally, in speaking on the Rule for H. Res. 40, Expressing 
support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to 
defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies, let me just say 
that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider 
amendments on this bills.
  Despite having the opportunity for open debate, the Committee 
regrettably chose to consider this legislation under a closed rule--
foreclosing any ability for us to make this Resolution one that we 
could come together on.
  Had the Rule allowed, I would have submitted an amendment to remove 
incendiary and vague language as well as false and misleading claims 
from this Resolution in an effort to gain agreement around what should 
be its central point--that we recognize and appreciate the service of 
all law enforcement officers and condemn all calls to abolish law 
enforcement agencies of any kind.
  First and foremost, my amendment would have removed the word 
``local'' anywhere it appears because we should state unequivocally 
that we support all law enforcement officers--unconditionally.
  We know that all law enforcement--male, female, LGBTQ+, very 
experienced, rookie, patrol, or behind a desk--work tirelessly to 
protect us and keep us safe. Whether they are state, local, tribal, or 
federal agents or officers--we are grateful for their service.
  These are the individuals we rely on to stop a mass shooter as they 
opened fire on shoppers at a mall in Texas; to guard and police our 
borders; to seek out predators behind a computer screen; or to help us 
locate an elderly or disabled loved one who has wandered off.

  And so, this Resolution, as it is currently written, ignores a large 
portion of dedicated officers who do not fall within the definition of 
``local law enforcement''--a term of art of which we legislators are 
well aware.
  My amendment would have corrected that omission and acknowledges the 
137,000 federal agents and officers in the 50 states and the District 
of Columbia--including the United States Capitol Police.
  Secondly, my amendment would have eliminated problematic, unnecessary 
language and misleading claims.

[[Page E462]]

  For example, my amendment would have removed the claim that leftist 
activists and progressive politicians actively encouraged resentment 
toward law enforcement, which casts a wide, unfair, and erroneous net.
  It would also eliminate the claim that language regarding funding 
police vilifies and harms local law enforcement.
  We can all agree that we need law enforcement. Of that, there is no 
doubt. But defunding the police means different things to different 
people.
  From completely abolishing or disbanding law enforcement agencies--as 
some of my Republican colleagues have proposed we do to ATF, FBI, and 
even DOJ--to adding resources to other programs or services that might 
have been neglected in the past or to lighten the load of officers who 
are called upon to respond to too much.
  That is why I believe my amendment would have allowed Congress to 
come together on this Resolution, using language on which we all can 
agree--that does not accuse, disparage, or attempt to shame.
  Resolutions like this one make it difficult for us to commence the 
truly difficult work of making policing safer for law enforcement 
officers and the communities they serve.
  I have worked for decades to adopt reasonable gun violence prevention 
legislation and to institute transformative policing reforms.
  All too often law enforcement officers are taken by the violence we 
expect them to prevent. And increasingly, officers and agents are 
losing their lives to gun-related violence--often times with handguns.
  Although the number of law enforcement officers who died in the line 
of duty decreased by more than 30 percent over the first six months of 
2022 compared to that same period in 2021, the number of officers 
killed by guns increased by nearly 20 percent.
  And, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
Fund, for the whole of 2022, the number of officers killed decreased by 
roughly 61 percent--that is from 586 federal, state, tribal and local 
law enforcement officers killed in 2021 down to 224.
  Despite this dramatic decrease in line-of-duty deaths, due almost 
entirely to the significant reduction in deaths resulting from COVID-
19, by the end of 2022, the same number of officers died by gunfire as 
in the previous year--reflecting a 21 percent increase over the 
historical average of firearms-related deaths between 2010 and 2020. 
This is unacceptable.
  Let's get back to the real work of Congress instead of engaging in 
partisan gamesmanship.
  Lastly, in speaking on the Rule for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.
  Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, this legislation 
would allow federal agencies to sell those handguns to federal law 
enforcement officers in good standing--promoting public safety, 
reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.
  Although I support this underlying legislation, I would point out 
that the previous version of this bill, introduced by former 
Congresswoman Val Demings, included a requirement that any law 
enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as 
part of the transfer. But this version does not.
  Congresswoman Demings's bill also wisely advised via a sense of 
Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used 
to fund gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.
  These are both excellent ideas that we should add back into this 
legislation.
  While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a 
handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records 
check of some kind would ensure that vital information has not been 
missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.
  Questions still remain and law enforcement continues to investigate 
the mass shooting that occurred in Allen, Texas.
  But we know that a Defense Department official said that Army staff 
``quickly identified'' that the shooter ``was a problem.''
  And the Pentagon confirmed that the shooter was terminated from the 
Army for mental health reasons--after only three months and without 
completing basic training.
  And yet, years later, he completed several firearms proficiency 
courses for his work as a security guard, amassed a cache of firearms 
and 13 large capacity magazines, and no one caught that this person 
probably should not have guns.
  Even law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use 
must provide a federal firearms licensee with a certification on agency 
letterhead that the officer will use the firearm in their official 
duties and that a records check establishes that the purchasing officer 
has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence--despite 
there being no requirement to undergo a background check.
  Background checks, and records checks in limited circumstances, are 
important because they help promote public trust.
  By ensuring that only responsible, law-abiding individuals, including 
law enforcement officers, can purchase firearms and are willing to 
undergo background checks to do so, this program could set the example 
and promote safer, more secure communities across the country.
  We can and we must do more when it comes to buying, selling, and 
trading firearms. That is why the proceeds derived from the sale of 
these retired, surplus handguns would be best spent on programs focused 
exclusively on gun violence prevention and gun safety education and 
training.
  The money earned from these sales could help us find solutions to end 
the bloodshed because far too many people have died.

                          ____________________