[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13875-13884]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 513

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

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


                             General Leave

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

[[Page 13876]]

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

                              {time}  1230

  Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with 
this bill can't get much worse.
  Mr. Speaker, challenged by their party's leader, Donald John Trump, 
to fix DACA, House leadership, instead, brings this bill to the floor, 
a bill that does nothing but peddle in the politics of fear, a bill 
that purports to make communities safer, when all it does is serve red 
meat to the Republican base and foment xenophobia.
  Everyone in this House, everyone in this Nation, can agree that 
confronting and defeating the perpetrators of gang violence is a good 
and worthy goal. In fact, we already have laws on the books that do 
just that. We already have task forces on gangs in virtually all of our 
communities.
  This bill, on the other hand, will not make our communities safer. It 
will, however, undermine the rule of law in this country by betraying 
our commitment to the Constitution's guarantee of due process. The bill 
is also glaringly pretextual in its approach and overbroad in its 
effect so that it can be seen as nothing other than yet another move to 
implement Donald John Trump's promise to the Republican base to engage 
in mass deportation of immigrant communities across our country.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our immigration system is in dire 
need of attention. It is also clear that we should approach our work in 
a manner that is fair to all Americans and compassionate toward those 
who have fled unbelievable violence and are seeking a better life here 
in the United States.
  We should be proud that we remain--despite the anti-immigrant 
rhetoric emanating from the White House--a beacon of hope for freedom-
loving people around the world, and we should remain welcoming upon 
their arrival.
  This, however, is not the tack taken by many of my Republican 
friends, and is certainly not the path taken by House leadership with 
today's bill.
  As evidence of their approach, we need only to look at the despair 
the

[[Page 13877]]

Republican Party has cast upon the 800,000 DREAMers who live in this 
country. Instead of finally making permanent the status of DREAMers in 
this country as full citizens, the first act the Republican majority 
takes after Donald John Trump tweeted that he would end DACA, then 
tweeted that he would revisit the issue in 6 months, the first thing 
that they did was to present a bill that is so broadly drafted that a 
group of five or more nuns could constitute a criminal gang in the eyes 
of the law.
  Indeed, the bill's harboring provisions under section 274 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act are, as Sister Simone Campbell said, 
``so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, 
transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found 
liable of criminal activity. The Federal courts have found that 
`harboring' includes offering a known undocumented individual a place 
to stay.''
  Sister Simone concluded with this salient point: ``This statute has 
been used against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to 
make it a weapon for the future.''
  Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short years ago that the Grand Old 
Party, in the wake of their electoral loss to President Barack Obama in 
2012, issued their autopsy of what went wrong. That report concluded 
that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanic 
Americans.
  Yet, instead of heeding their own advice, President Donald John Trump 
called Mexican Americans murderers and rapists on the very first day of 
his campaign. From that dark point on, Hispanic Americans have had to 
watch one of the two major political parties in their country descend 
further and further into the abyss of xenophobia.
  Democrats stand ready to have a serious conversation about 
comprehensive immigration reform and border security, and I urge my 
Republican friends to put the red meat aside for the moment and work 
with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 
Immigration and Border Security, a clear-eyed thinker on this subject, 
and has been the same for a protracted period of time. Few in this body 
can rival her abilities on this particular subject.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the Criminal 
Alien Gang Member Removal Act, but, as we have seen in the past, the 
name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual text of the bill, 
and that is true in this case, regrettably.
  As has been mentioned, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal 
gangs so broadly as to sweep in many individuals that no one would 
think of as a gang member.
  The bill, for example, would classify any group of five that engages 
in harboring as a criminal gang. Now, harboring includes giving shelter 
to, or transporting, or providing other kinds of aid to undocumented 
immigrants. This means, as has been mentioned, that a religious 
organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be defined as a 
criminal gang. And any immigrant clergy or congregationalist that 
assists that organization would be deportable if they are a legal 
permanent resident, or on a religious worker visa, or the like.
  Now, this isn't just a hypothetical. During the 1980s, members of the 
religious communities were repeatedly prosecuted for providing 
transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one fell swoop, this bill 
could turn nuns into gang members. And that is why I include in the 
Record, Mr. Speaker, the letter that Mr. Hastings referenced from the 
nuns objecting to this piece of legislation for those reasons.

                                             Network Advocates for


                                      Catholic Social Justice.

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

                                  Sister Simone Campbell, SSS,

                                               Executive Director,
                        NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the bill also refers to felony drug 
offenses. That includes, actually, use of drugs repeatedly that is 
lawful in the State where it has been approved, but still unlawful 
under Federal law.
  That means, for example, in California, the voters of California 
first approved medical marijuana, and then marijuana more broadly. 
Groups of cancer patients take marijuana, and also epilepsy sufferers, 
to assist in their medical condition. Under this bill, those 
individuals who are repeatedly using marijuana in groups of five or 
above would be a criminal gang.
  Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill authorize DHS officers and 
immigration judges to deport any immigrant, including lawful permanent 
residents of the United States, without requiring a conviction or even 
an arrest.
  Instead, the DHS would rely on evidence as minimal as the color of a 
person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, the individual in their 
family, the belief of the officer. This is not just unreasonable, it is 
probably unconstitutional.
  Now, Chairman Goodlatte had an amendment that apparently recognized 
this fact, but it only fixes one part of the problem. His amendment, 
which would be effectuated through adoption of the rule, eliminates the 
extremely low reason-to-believe standard with respect to deportation, 
which applies, of

[[Page 13878]]

course, to permanent residents and other immigrants in the United 
States.
  But even with this amendment, the bill authorizes the broad 
deportation of noncriminals, including religious workers, and, as I 
say, users of medical marijuana. And here is the other kicker: it could 
deny admission, without any review, to anyone who is suspected of doing 
a thing outlined in the bill, for example, using marijuana or a 
religious worker harboring someone who is undocumented.
  How would that work? If you are a legal permanent resident of the 
United States and you go visit your family in another country, when you 
try to come back in, you are stopped, and you are denied readmission, 
even if you have been here 10, 20, 30 years, and there is no appeal. 
You are out of luck.
  That is not fighting MS-13. That is not about gang reduction. That is 
really an overreach on this bill that none of us should agree with.
  There is another way this would work, which is an adjustment of 
status. Let's give this example: your son marries a woman from another 
country who is here on a legal visa, but she is part of a church that 
is providing sanctuary for a DREAMer. She is, therefore, suspected as 
being part of this criminal gang, a group of five or more, that is 
harboring this undocumented person.
  When your son goes to petition for his now-wife to become a legal 
permanent resident, she is going to be denied, and it is a reasonable-
belief standard, not the higher standard that Mr. Goodlatte has tried 
to impose. There is no hearing. There is no appeal on that. Your 
daughter-in-law, and probably your son, are going to have to leave the 
country, and your grandchildren raised in another country.
  This is really not the American way. It is unproductive. It doesn't 
keep us any safer, and it doesn't do anything about MS-13.
  I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on this rule and that we 
could, instead, sit down together, reason together, come up with a plan 
that actually does something about gang violence.
  I am sure that, if we work together, we could come up with a bill 
that meets the requirements of the Constitution; that is targeted 
towards gang members, not nuns; and that actually makes our country 
safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for allowing my comments on this. I 
think the bill is mistitled, and it would be a mistake to allow it to 
proceed without further changes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
  I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and my fellow Judiciary Committee 
colleagues for prioritizing cracking down on illegal immigration in the 
committee this year. All the time, I hear from constituents who are 
frustrated by this country's unwillingness to address our illegal 
immigration problem. They are also fed up with hearing politicians 
promise to do something about it, only to offer excuses later.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this Congress and this administration have 
shown, over the last 9 months, that we are willing to do something 
about illegal immigration, and this legislation is a great example of 
our commitment to addressing this problem.
  When it comes to cracking down on illegal immigration, I believe most 
of us agree that we should start by targeting dangerous criminals who 
put Americans at risk. H.R. 3697 is a commonsense measure that does 
just that by amending existing law to combat gang violence by criminal 
aliens.
  Many Americans may hear this and wonder: ``What gang violence?'' The 
most notorious Latin-American gang is known as MS-13, which began in 
the 1980s, and has grown to an estimated 8,000 members in the United 
States. They have a violent history of organized crime in the areas of 
drug trafficking, kidnapping, human smuggling, sex trafficking, murder, 
assassinations, blackmail, and extortion.
  To give you an idea of just how violent MS-13 is, the English 
translation of their motto is: ``Kill, steal, rape, control.''
  Mr. Speaker, gangs of criminal aliens are terrorizing American 
communities, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. 
H.R. 3697 will amend the law to finally make a person's history of 
involvement in a criminal gang grounds for inadmissibility into this 
country--that means involvement in drugs, sex trafficking, kidnapping, 
murder, or any other awful crime spelled out in the law.

                              {time}  1245

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


[[Page 13879]]


         Committee on Migration, Migration and Refugee Services, 
           USCCB,
                               Washington, DC, September 12, 2017.
       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the U.S. 
     Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration 
     (USCCB/COM) to express our serious concern regarding H.R. 
     3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act,'' which 
     is being considered by the full House for a vote this 
     Wednesday, September 13, 2017. We urge you to reject H.R. 
     3697 as it is a very broad bill that could contribute to 
     victims of criminal gangs facing detention and being barred 
     from seeking protection in the U.S.
       The Catholic Church has significant interest in the 
     protection of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers. The 
     Catholic Church's work in assisting immigrants stems from the 
     belief that every person is created in God's image and should 
     be treated with dignity and compassion. While the Catholic 
     Church recognizes governments' sovereign right to control 
     their borders, we believe this right should be balanced with 
     the right of immigrants to access safety and due process. 
     Jesus himself was a migrant, and the Holy Family, a migrant 
     family fleeing persecution from King Herod. The USCCB works 
     to fulfill the teachings of the Church on migration through 
     our work providing resettlement services to refugees, 
     services to unaccompanied immigrant children, and case 
     management services to human trafficking victims in the 
     United States.
       Violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala (the 
     Northern Triangle of Central America) remains the primary 
     force driving citizens to flee and seek protection. We have 
     seen firsthand from our work with unaccompanied children and 
     their families the increasing threat posed by gangs and 
     forcible gang recruitment in the Northern Triangle. Moreover, 
     the United Nations' refugee-protection agency (UNHCR) found 
     that the majority of children fleeing the Northern Triangle 
     ``were forcibly displaced because they suffered or faced 
     harms that indicated a potential or actual need for 
     international protection.'' Alarmingly, however, H.R. 3697, 
     would deny critical protection to many of these children and 
     their families.
       H.R. 3697 establishes both an expansive definition of 
     ``criminal gang'' and a low threshold for association with 
     such a group. The bill allows those whom the government 
     merely has ``reason to believe'' have ever been gang members 
     or those who have participated in any activities of a 
     designated group as inadmissible, deportable and subject to 
     mandatory detention. Additionally, because of such a 
     perceived ``association'' by the government, these 
     individuals would be unable to access several vital forms of 
     legal relief, including asylum, Temporary Protected Status, 
     and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.
       Given these severe consequences, we are particularly 
     concerned that H.R. 3697 provides no exemption for children 
     or other individuals who were victims of gangs and or 
     individuals who were forced to engage in gang-related 
     activities under duress. We fear that under H.R. 3697 there 
     will be victimized children who will be considered 
     ``associated'' with criminal gangs. This concern is 
     reinforced by the stories of the children we serve daily. 
     They are children like Mariana who was 16 when the local gang 
     began to target and harass her in her home country of El 
     Salvador. Mariana lived in constant fear after the gang began 
     to threaten her and her family, ultimately forcing her to 
     smuggle a package of drugs to another neighborhood in El 
     Salvador. After this incident, Mariana fled to the U.S. to 
     escape the growing daily threat of the gang and also to avoid 
     forcible recruitment. Mariana is living with her mother now 
     while she complies with her immigration proceedings. Sadly, 
     we know Mariana is just one of many children from the 
     Northern Triangle trying to flee gang violence. H.R. 3697 
     would deny such children safety, forcibly returning them to 
     situations where their wellbeing and even their lives would 
     be at risk.
       We should not be turning our back on children and families 
     who have fallen victim to and are fleeing from the very 
     criminal organizations which our country is so diligently 
     working to eradicate. Rather, these victims are deserving of 
     our compassion, care, and protection and should be encouraged 
     to tell their stories so that we may adequately bolster our 
     prevention and child protection work. Our committee 
     understands and appreciates your commitment to the safety and 
     security of our nation. H.R. 3697, however, is not the 
     answer. We must resist the urge to mischaracterize and 
     mislabel victims in search of a safe haven. We urge you to 
     reject H.R. 3697 and instead work towards immigration reform 
     that addresses root causes and safe repatriation and 
     integration. And we pray that the all victims of criminal 
     gangs--regardless of their immigration status--find peace and 
     justice.
           Sincerely,
                                         Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,
                           Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

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

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

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

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and 
     supporters, we urge members of the House to oppose H.R. 3697 
     which is expected to be brought up for a floor vote as early 
     as Thursday, September 14.
       The American Civil Liberties Union recommends a NO vote on 
     this bill because it will promote widespread racial 
     profiling, violate First Amendment protections, expand 
     mandatory detention of immigrants, raise serious 
     constitutional questions on judicial review of government 
     designations of certain groups, and bar humanitarian relief 
     for individuals in violation of international treaties.
       H.R. 3697 will promote widespread racial profiling, risking 
     violation of individuals' Fifth Amendment equal protection 
     rights.
       H.R. 3697 will empower the immigration authorities to 
     conduct dragnet sweeps of Latino communities and other 
     communities of color. Media reports make clear that law 
     enforcement has recently relied on questionable and 
     unreliable evidence to assert that Latino individuals are 
     gang members, including wearing certain kinds of clothes or 
     doodling an area code from a Latin American country on a 
     school notebook. Officers have alleged gang membership 
     sometimes based on merely being seen with people who are 
     alleged gang members or living in neighborhoods known to 
     suffer gang activity. This bill gives DHS the latitude to 
     arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens including long-time 
     green card holders for the ``crime'' of living in an 
     immigrant neighborhood or showing pride in their countries of 
     origin.
       Gang databases information-sharing arrangements between 
     local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities are 
     flawed, inaccurate, encourage biased policing, and have been 
     repeatedly shown to be unreliable. Gang databases have 
     extremely low thresholds for inclusion: simply living in a 
     neighborhood where there are gang members or talking to 
     people who are gang members often results in a young person 
     being placed in a gang database. An audit of California's 
     gang database CalGangs found that law enforcement could not 
     substantiate a significant proportion of their entries into 
     the gang database. Reliance on gang databases will only 
     further encourage racial profiling of young men of color 
     living in poor neighborhoods.
       H.R. 3697 seeks to deport immigrants based on a mere 
     ``reason to believe'' that they have been involved in gang 
     activities. This overly broad designation could sweep up 
     individuals who have not engaged in criminal activity. 
     Indeed, in many cases, H.R. 3697 could make immigrants 
     deportable for activities protected by the First Amendment.
       H.R. 3697 subjects an individual to deportation if the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security

[[Page 13880]]

     or Attorney General ``knows or has reason to believe'' that 
     an individual is a gang member. A person is also subject to 
     deportation, if, the individual has ``participated in the 
     activities'' of the ``gang'' knowing or having reason to know 
     that their activities will ``promote, further, aid or 
     support'' the illegal activity. This expansive language could 
     sweep up people who have committed no criminal activity 
     whatsoever.
       Even worse, H.R. 3697 risks making people deportable for 
     activities that are constitutionally protected under the 
     First Amendment.
       ``Reason to believe'' is an exceedingly low standard of 
     proof that will subject people to deportation based on mere 
     probable cause of gang involvement. This is especially 
     troubling given the lack of strict rules of evidence in 
     immigration court, where individuals may be deemed gang 
     members based on hearsay.
       H.R. 3697 includes no exception for offenses committed as a 
     juvenile. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the broad 
     legal consensus that juveniles should be held to different 
     standards of culpability.
       H.R. 3697 also includes no exception for having 
     ``participated in the activities of a gang under duress, 
     which is a well-recognized defense against criminal conduct. 
     Many vulnerable individuals may have ``participated in the 
     activities'' of a gang under coercion, including for fear of 
     their lives or those of their family members. It raises 
     serious due process concerns to subject individuals to 
     removability based on such conduct.
       H.R. 3697 grants the Department of Homeland Security 
     massive discretion to designate a group as a ``criminal 
     gang'', based on secret evidence, and without meaningful 
     judicial review, which raises serious constitutional 
     questions.
       H.R. 3697 creates a vague and overbroad definition of a 
     ``criminal gang'' that sweeps in lawful and constitutionally 
     protected conduct.
       H.R. 3697 grants the Secretary of Homeland extraordinarily 
     broad discretion to designate a group a ``criminal gang'', 
     based on ``classified'' or ex parte evidence that the 
     designated individuals may not access, even in a court 
     challenge. The Government's ability to rely on secret 
     evidence to make and defend the gang designation raises 
     serious due process concerns.
       H.R. 3697 also bars individuals from ``rais[ing] any 
     question concerning the validity of [a gang designation]'' in 
     their own removal proceedings.
       H.R. 3697 provides little to no opportunity to challenge 
     for those unjustly subject to a gang designation. A group 
     cannot petition for revocation for two years after the 
     designation, during which time alleged members cannot 
     challenge the validity of that designation in removal 
     proceedings--thereby punishing and deporting individuals over 
     facts they cannot challenge. Similarly, groups have 30 days 
     to file a legal challenge to the designation in court, but 
     that judicial review cannot prevent other pieces of the act 
     from moving forward, such as removal proceedings, until there 
     is a final order from the court. Whether petitioning for 
     revocation or challenging a designation in court, this act 
     has the effect of punishing and removing individuals without 
     providing sufficient options for recourse or redress.
       H.R. 3697 bars important forms of humanitarian relief for 
     individuals fleeing persecution and children facing 
     situations of abuse, which violates U.S. treaty obligations 
     and raises serious constitutional concerns.
       At the same time, H.R. 3697 bars individuals accused of 
     gang involvement from asylum and withholding of removal, thus 
     stripping individuals fleeing persecution--including 
     potentially thousands of individuals fleeing gang violence in 
     Central America--from refuge in the United States. H.R. 3697 
     thus violates U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention 
     and the international law prohibition of nonrefoulement, or 
     the return of individuals to situations where they will face 
     persecution or torture.
       H.R. 3697 would also strip children accused of gang 
     involvement of eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile 
     Status (SIJS), which provides immigration relief to children 
     facing abuse and neglect. To deport these children would be 
     cruel and irrational when many of the children applying for 
     SIJS have come to the U.S. to flee gang violence in Central 
     America.
       H.R. 3697 irrationally strips individuals of Temporary 
     Protected Status (TPS) which is an important humanitarian 
     protection for noncitizens.
       H.R. 3697 expands the scope of mandatory detention, in 
     violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
       H.R. 3697 would require the mandatory detention of 
     immigrants accused of gang involvement, without the basic due 
     process of a bond hearing to determine if the person even 
     needs to be locked up in the first place.
       H.R. 3697 would impose mandatory detention on individuals 
     who seek asylum at a port-of-entry--many of whom are fleeing 
     gang violence in Central America--by eliminating parole for 
     asylum seekers accused of gang ties.
       The detention provisions raise serious due process 
     concerns. As the Supreme Court has held, ``[i]n our society, 
     liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without 
     trial is the carefully limited exception.'' Although the 
     Supreme Court has upheld limited periods of mandatory 
     immigration detention where Congress found certain categories 
     of noncitizens to pose a heightened flight risk or risk to 
     public safety, H.R. 3697 sweeps far beyond what is 
     constitutionally permissible.
       Separate from any relationship with gang affiliation, the 
     TPS-specific provisions of the legislation revise the statute 
     to allow the government to detain noncitizens with TPS 
     ``whenever appropriate under any provision of law.'' This 
     potentially raises the specter that noncitizens who have been 
     granted protection by our government could languish in 
     detention for prolonged periods of time, in violation of due 
     process.
       The detention provisions are a massive waste of taxpayer 
     dollars. The immigration authorities already have full 
     authority to detain any individual pending a removal 
     proceeding. Individuals remain in detention unless they meet 
     their burden of proving, either to an immigration judge at a 
     bond hearing or to an ICE office make a parole determination, 
     that they pose no flight risk or danger to the community.
       For the above reasons the ACLU urges a NO vote on H.R. 
     3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act.''
           Regards,
     Faiz Shakir,
       Director, Washington Legislative Office.
     Lorella Praeli,
       Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
                                  ____

                                                   Asian Americans


                                            Advancing Justice.

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

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

                                                 Service Employees


                                          International Union,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members 
     of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I urge 
     you to oppose H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member 
     Removal Act.
       The bill includes an overbroad definition of gangs and gang 
     membership that would extend to efforts by good samaritans to 
     help immigrants in need. It also fails to establish adequate 
     due process standards to allow groups that are falsely 
     identified as gangs to challenge the designation. 
     Furthermore, it would require mandatory detention and would 
     eliminate core immigration relief for persons that the 
     Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice 
     ``has

[[Page 13881]]

     reason to believe'' may be a gang member. Those affected are 
     likely to include many gang victims who often are erroneously 
     included in gang databases.
       In addition to being far too broad, H.R. 3697 would do 
     little to reduce gang activity and could actually be 
     counterproductive. The bill focuses on driving immigrants 
     further underground, but that will make community policing 
     and proven gang prevention activities harder, and the bill 
     will have no impact on the majority of gang members who are 
     U.S. citizens.
       We therefore strongly urge a no vote on H.R. 3697, and may 
     include this vote on our legislative scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                        John Gray,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                                 National Hispanic


                                            Leadership Agenda,

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

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the National 
     Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA), a coalition of 45 leading 
     national Latino nonpartisan civil rights and advocacy 
     organizations, to strongly urge you to vote against H.R. 
     3697, Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. This bill 
     further entrenches a national narrative that immigrants and 
     Latinos are criminals. To vote on this bill on the heels of 
     the President's decision to rescind the Deferred Action for 
     Childhood Arrivals program sends a clear message to our 
     communities that we are unwelcome. NHLA recommends a ``no'' 
     vote on H.R. 3697, and any similar legislation, including 
     amendments and cloture votes. NHLA will closely monitor any 
     votes on these matters for inclusion in future NHLA 
     scorecards evaluating Member support for the Latino 
     community.
       The purpose of legislation like this is to categorize 
     immigrants and Latinos as dangerous criminals, by making 
     sweeping, false generalizations and assumptions about these 
     populations. Studies repeatedly have shown that immigrants 
     are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born 
     Americans, less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to 
     be repeat offenders. Meanwhile, the damage to immigrant and 
     Latino communities is clear. Latinos are already reporting 
     fewer crimes in major cities as a result of the toxic 
     political rhetoric against Latinos and immigrants under the 
     current administration. This proposal only serves to paint 
     immigrants and Latinos with a broad brush as gangsters and 
     lawbreakers.
       H.R. 3697 creates a new definition under the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act for the term ``criminal gang,'' and would 
     severely penalize individuals determined by the Secretary of 
     the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney General 
     to allegedly be a member of a criminal gang. This is 
     troubling legislation for a few reasons. The expansive 
     definition of what constitutes a ``criminal gang'' and 
     ``criminal gang activity'' in this bill will open the door to 
     racial profiling and lead to the criminalization of 
     individuals who have never supported criminal behavior. The 
     bill empowers government officials to arrest, detain, and 
     deport any non-citizens, even lawful permanent residents, who 
     have not been found guilty of any crime under the law, 
     raising serious due process concerns. H.R. 3697 sets an 
     alarmingly low evidentiary standard, whereby government 
     officials can deport non-citizens who they ``know or ha[ve] 
     reason to believe'' are gang-involved. Another due process 
     concern is that once a non-citizen receives a gang-
     classification, they may be unable to apply for any 
     legitimate relief. For example, one would be disqualified 
     from applying for Temporary Protected Status or Special 
     Immigrant Juvenile Status, even in cases where the child was 
     forced to join a gang at gunpoint, as is often the case with 
     minors fleeing Central America.
       For people fleeing gender-based violence, which is 
     occurring with much more frequency in Central America, 
     barriers to forms of relief or protection are particularly 
     acute as many are often forced to join gangs to save their 
     lives.
       H.R. 3697 sends a dangerous message to the country in a 
     time when our elected officials must be standing against 
     nativist messages, not catering to them. This bill does 
     nothing but criminalize immigrants and bar those who have 
     credible asylum claims from the safe haven they need. To the 
     extent Congress seeks to address the issue of gangs in the 
     U.S. and abroad, it must do so after careful study and with 
     smart policy. H.R. 3697 is neither well studied nor smart. 
     Rather, it is a misguided effort to broaden the scope of 
     those who will be accused of gang membership and to prohibit 
     future relief from individuals based merely on association or 
     unreliable indicators of gang membership, or to those who 
     were forced into gang membership under duress. Those who have 
     never been convicted, those who are not gang members, and 
     even those who have been extorted in an effort to save a 
     loved one's life will be punished. In the process, immigrants 
     and Latinos will continue to suffer the brutal consequences 
     of policies that criminalize our communities and stereotype 
     our people as nothing more than gang members. It is clear 
     that this bill is intended to further demonize immigrants and 
     will not serve to make communities safer, especially 
     considering that law enforcement already has mechanisms in 
     place to track gang activity.
       This Congress has not only shirked its responsibility to 
     effectively address the problems with our broken immigration 
     system, but it is consistently moving our country in the 
     wrong direction by fostering space for dangerous and 
     xenophobic rhetoric and policy. Nonetheless, this body can 
     truly make meaningful change in the immigration landscape by 
     supporting efforts to provide a path to citizenship for 
     undocumented immigrants like DREAMers who have contributed so 
     much to our country.
       We urge you to vote no on H.R. 3697. Thank you for your 
     time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas A. Saenz,
       MALDEF, President and General Counsel, NHLA Immigration 
     Committee Co-Chair.
     Jose Calderon,
       Hispanic Federation, President, NHLA Immigration Committee 
     Co-Chair.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle 
is a multitalented person. In addition to his curriculum vitae, he 
carries with him the mantle of being a man of the cloth. I know he 
knows Matthew 25:35. It is oft quoted, and we do well to remember it. 
Among the things that are said in that verse are: ``For I was hungry 
and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a 
stranger and you welcomed me.'' This sentiment must be our guiding 
principle, our North Star, as we work to repair our broken immigration 
system.
  Today's bill is in total opposition to this sentiment as it works to 
demonize, with one broad, careless, and probably unconstitutional 
stroke, an entire group of people, the vast majority of whom simply 
wish to find refuge from immense hardship in their country of origin.
  My Republican friends should take yet another in a long line of 
legislative mulligans on this bill and come to the table ready to work 
in a sensible way to fix our immigration system. I would suggest they 
could start by bringing the DREAM Act to the floor for an up-or-down 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe today's debate has made this very clear. We 
are talking about gang members from some of the most violent gangs in 
the world. We are talking about removing members of those gangs that 
are in this country and are attempting to come to this country 
illegally.
  We are a nation of laws. It is our duty to uphold those laws and to 
strengthen those laws when necessary. This is a time when it is 
necessary.
  We are not talking about singling out certain community groups, 
religious groups, or law-abiding citizens as someone said on the other 
side or would have you believe. We are talking about strengthening and 
enforcing our laws against known criminal alien gang members who are 
putting our communities at risk and threatening our citizens and legal 
residents.
  The Federal Government's highest responsibility is to protect the 
safety of our Nation and the American people. Cracking down on illegal 
criminal alien gang members is one critical way we can do that.
  The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes important strides to 
better combat gang violence, and I look forward to supporting this rule 
and the underlying bill to strengthen public safety and uphold the rule 
of law.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule 
governing debate of H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal 
Act of 2017'', and the underlying bill.
  I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because regular 
order was not observed in bringing this bill to the floor, the bill 
contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an 
unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the 
American people.

[[Page 13882]]

  As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am 
highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any 
thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee.
  In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation 
that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale.
  This bill extends the definition of ``criminal gangs'' as defined 
under 18 USC section 521, and amends the INA to now include a 
definition for criminal gangs as:
  An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more 
persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 
certain listed offenses, including:
  --a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of 
marijuana (this would impact high school kids who may gather to smoke 
marijuana);
  --bringing in and harboring certain aliens (this would cover 
sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants);
  --identity fraud offenses (including knowingly possessing a false 
identity document);
  --crimes involving obstruction of justice; and burglary.
  A bill of this nature where the consequences are so severe to many 
innocent parties, including a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, demands a 
more robust dialogue with a prudent and judicious approach.
  As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on 
behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee; 
and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree.
  So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits 
of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening.
  Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative 
process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will 
continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having 
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter.
  We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues 
with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up.
  So Mr. Speaker I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning 
where necessary on behalf of the American people.
  We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools, 
health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change, 
building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country 
together for `all' the American people, we are instead debating a 
damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on 
mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business. We 
are also uniting in protecting the American people against violent 
crime.
  I care deeply about crime as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime 
Subcommittee, thus, if we want to have that debate here on the floor, 
let's have a wholesome conversation.
  The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, 
and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally 
active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today.
  Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to 
control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, 
which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human 
trafficking, and fraud.
  Striking, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a 
significantly larger percentage were non illegal immigrants, as this 
bill's objective purports.
  Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan 
Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican 
Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to 
name a few here that are mainly white supremacist gang groups. We could 
go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group.
  As a result, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill for several 
reasons; first, it has a discriminatory effect in targeting the 
immigrant community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises 
due process and racial profiling concerns.
  I offered an amendment which would have cured this defect by 
requiring a uniform legal standard in the Secretary of Homeland 
Security's designation of `criminal street gang' for purposes of ICE 
enforcement.
  Based on the government's own data via the FBI, it is clear that 
criminal street gangs are not exclusively limited to the immigrant 
community.
  Second, I oppose this Rule because the bill has a sweeping effect 
that will criminalize and/or deport anyone remotely connected to a 
supposed gang member, even where there is no conviction and alarmingly, 
no arrest.
  My second amendment would raise the standard of proof from a mere 
belief that someone is associated with a criminal street gang, to clear 
and convincing evidence.
  This bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland Security 
is to determine its designation of a `criminal street gang'.
  That is why I offered my third amendment, which would have required a 
uniform legal standard which will govern the identification of Criminal 
Street gang members for purposes of ICE enforcement.
  According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a 
13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of 
detention and deportation.
  If we begin to criminalize people merely for their associations, then 
we are heading down a terribly dark road. Statistics show that the 
brain does not fully develop until the age of 25, and thus to punish 
juveniles for the mere associations they may have, is a bad idea and 
bad legislation.
  According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were 
held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015.
  Due to this bill's vague nature, it would add to that alarming 
number, and further complicate mass incarceration.
  This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent 
residence status, so long as the government believes the individual is 
associated with a criminal street gang.
  My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this 
bill. In its current form, the bill is bad for our country and does not 
keep our communities safe, but instead does the opposite.
  For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

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

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


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''

[[Page 13883]]

       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               YEAS--222

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

                               NAYS--184

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

                             NOT VOTING--27

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

                              {time}  1320

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 487]

                               AYES--222

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)

[[Page 13884]]


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

                               NOES--186

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

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

                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1328

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

                          ____________________