[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14488-14503]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
                 CRIMINAL ALIEN GANG MEMBER REMOVAL ACT

  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 513, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3697) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act 
with respect to aliens associated with criminal gangs, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 513, the amendment printed in House Report 115-307 is 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3697

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member 
     Removal Act''.

     SEC. 2. GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY FOR 
                   ALIEN GANG MEMBERS.

       (a) Definition of Gang Member.--Section 101(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(53) The term `criminal gang' means an ongoing group, 
     club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that 
     has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or 
     more of the following criminal offenses and the members of 
     which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a 
     continuing series of such offenses, or that has been 
     designated as a criminal gang by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, as 
     meeting these criteria. The offenses described, whether in 
     violation of Federal or State law or foreign law and 
     regardless of whether the offenses occurred before, on, or 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are the 
     following:
       ``(A) A `felony drug offense' (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       ``(B) An offense under section 274 (relating to bringing in 
     and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to 
     aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United 
     States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for 
     immoral purpose).
       ``(C) A crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of 
     title 18, United States Code).
       ``(D) A crime involving obstruction of justice, tampering 
     with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant, 
     or burglary.
       ``(E) Any conduct punishable under sections 1028 and 1029 
     of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and 
     related activity in connection with identification documents 
     or access devices), sections 1581 through 1594 of such title 
     (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons), 
     section 1951 of such title (relating to interference with 
     commerce by threats or violence), section 1952 of such title 
     (relating to interstate and foreign travel or transportation 
     in aid of racketeering enterprises), section 1956 of such 
     title (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), 
     section 1957 of such title (relating to engaging in monetary 
     transactions in property derived from specified unlawful 
     activity), or sections 2312 through 2315 of such title 
     (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor 
     vehicles or stolen property).
       ``(F) A conspiracy to commit an offense described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E).''.
       (b) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(J) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien is 
     inadmissible who a consular officer, the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or the Attorney General knows or has 
     reason to believe--
       ``(i) to be or to have been a member of a criminal gang (as 
     defined in section 101(a)(53)); or
       ``(ii) to have participated in the activities of a criminal 
     gang (as defined in section 101(a)(53)), knowing or having 
     reason to know that such activities will promote, further, 
     aid, or support the illegal activity of the criminal gang.''.
       (c) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien is 
     deportable who--
       ``(i) is or has been a member of a criminal gang (as 
     defined in section 101(a)(53)); or
       ``(ii) has participated in the activities of a criminal 
     gang (as so defined), knowing or having reason to know that 
     such activities will promote, further, aid, or support the 
     illegal activity of the criminal gang.''.
       (d) Designation.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 2 of title II of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended by inserting 
     after section 219 the following:


                     ``designation of criminal gang

       ``Sec. 220.  (a) Designation.--
       ``(1) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, may designate a 
     group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more 
     persons as a criminal gang if the Secretary finds that their 
     conduct is described in section 101(a)(53).
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) Notification.--Seven days before making a designation 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall, by classified 
     communication, notify the Speaker and Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, the President pro tempore, Majority 
     Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, and the members of 
     the relevant committees of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate, in writing, of the intent to designate a group, 
     club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons under 
     this subsection and the factual basis therefor.
       ``(B) Publication in the federal register.--The Secretary 
     shall publish the designation in the Federal Register seven 
     days after providing the notification under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Record.--
       ``(A) In general.--In making a designation under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall create an administrative 
     record.
       ``(B) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider 
     classified information in making a designation under this 
     subsection. Classified information shall not be subject to 
     disclosure for such time as it remains classified, except 
     that such information may be disclosed to a court ex parte 
     and in camera for purposes of judicial review under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(4) Period of Designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--A designation under this subsection 
     shall be effective for all purposes until revoked under 
     paragraph (5) or (6) or set aside pursuant to subsection (c).
       ``(B) Review of designation upon petition.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall review the 
     designation of a criminal gang under the procedures set forth 
     in clauses (iii) and (iv) if the designated group, club, 
     organization, or association of 5 or more persons files a 
     petition for revocation within the petition period described 
     in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Petition period.--For purposes of clause (i)--
       ``(I) if the designated group, club, organization, or 
     association of 5 or more persons has not previously filed a 
     petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition 
     period begins 2 years after the date on which the designation 
     was made; or
       ``(II) if the designated group, club, organization, or 
     association of 5 or more persons has previously filed a 
     petition for revocation under this subparagraph, the petition 
     period begins 2 years after the date of the determination 
     made under clause (iv) on that petition.
       ``(iii) Procedures.--Any group, club, organization, or 
     association of 5 or more persons that submits a petition for 
     revocation under this subparagraph of its designation as a 
     criminal gang must provide evidence in that petition that it 
     is not described in section 101(a)(53).
       ``(iv) Determination.--
       ``(I) In general.--Not later than 180 days after receiving 
     a petition for revocation submitted under this subparagraph, 
     the Secretary shall make a determination as to such 
     revocation.
       ``(II) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider 
     classified information in making a determination in response 
     to a petition for revocation. Classified information shall 
     not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains 
     classified, except that such information may be disclosed to 
     a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial 
     review under subsection (c).

[[Page 14489]]

       ``(III) Publication of determination.--A determination made 
     by the Secretary under this clause shall be published in the 
     Federal Register.
       ``(IV) Procedures.--Any revocation by the Secretary shall 
     be made in accordance with paragraph (6).
       ``(C) Other review of designation.--
       ``(i) In general.--If in a 5-year period no review has 
     taken place under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
     review the designation of the criminal gang in order to 
     determine whether such designation should be revoked pursuant 
     to paragraph (6).
       ``(ii) Procedures.--If a review does not take place 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B) in response to a petition for 
     revocation that is filed in accordance with that 
     subparagraph, then the review shall be conducted pursuant to 
     procedures established by the Secretary. The results of such 
     review and the applicable procedures shall not be reviewable 
     in any court.
       ``(iii) Publication of results of review.--The Secretary 
     shall publish any determination made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph in the Federal Register.
       ``(5) Revocation by Act of Congress.--The Congress, by an 
     Act of Congress, may block or revoke a designation made under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(6) Revocation Based on Change in Circumstances.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may revoke a designation 
     made under paragraph (1) at any time, and shall revoke a 
     designation upon completion of a review conducted pursuant to 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) if the Secretary 
     finds that--
       ``(i) the group, club, organization, or association of 5 or 
     more persons that has been designated as a criminal gang is 
     no longer described in section 101(a)(53); or
       ``(ii) the national security or the law enforcement 
     interests of the United States warrants a revocation.
       ``(B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements of paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) shall apply to a revocation under this paragraph. 
     Any revocation shall take effect on the date specified in the 
     revocation or upon publication in the Federal Register if no 
     effective date is specified.
       ``(7) Effect of Revocation.--The revocation of a 
     designation under paragraph (5) or (6) shall not affect any 
     action or proceeding based on conduct committed prior to the 
     effective date of such revocation.
       ``(8) Use of Designation in Trial or Hearing.--If a 
     designation under this subsection has become effective under 
     paragraph (2) an alien in a removal proceeding shall not be 
     permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of 
     the issuance of such designation as a defense or an 
     objection.
       ``(b) Amendments to a Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may amend a designation 
     under this subsection if the Secretary finds that the group, 
     club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons has 
     changed its name, adopted a new alias, dissolved and then 
     reconstituted itself under a different name or names, or 
     merged with another group, club, organization, or association 
     of 5 or more persons.
       ``(2) Procedure.--Amendments made to a designation in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) shall be effective upon 
     publication in the Federal Register. Paragraphs (2), (4), 
     (5), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (a) shall also apply to 
     an amended designation.
       ``(3) Administrative record.--The administrative record 
     shall be corrected to include the amendments as well as any 
     additional relevant information that supports those 
     amendments.
       ``(4) Classified information.--The Secretary may consider 
     classified information in amending a designation in 
     accordance with this subsection. Classified information shall 
     not be subject to disclosure for such time as it remains 
     classified, except that such information may be disclosed to 
     a court ex parte and in camera for purposes of judicial 
     review under subsection (c) of this section.
       ``(c) Judicial Review of Designation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after publication 
     in the Federal Register of a designation, an amended 
     designation, or a determination in response to a petition for 
     revocation, the designated group, club, organization, or 
     association of 5 or more persons may seek judicial review in 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
       ``(2) Basis of review.--Review under this subsection shall 
     be based solely upon the administrative record, except that 
     the Government may submit, for ex parte and in camera review, 
     classified information used in making the designation, 
     amended designation, or determination in response to a 
     petition for revocation.
       ``(3) Scope of review.--The Court shall hold unlawful and 
     set aside a designation, amended designation, or 
     determination in response to a petition for revocation the 
     court finds to be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law;
       ``(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, 
     or immunity;
       ``(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or 
     limitation, or short of statutory right;
       ``(D) lacking substantial support in the administrative 
     record taken as a whole or in classified information 
     submitted to the court under paragraph (2); or
       ``(E) not in accord with the procedures required by law.
       ``(4) Judicial review invoked.--The pendency of an action 
     for judicial review of a designation, amended designation, or 
     determination in response to a petition for revocation shall 
     not affect the application of this section, unless the court 
     issues a final order setting aside the designation, amended 
     designation, or determination in response to a petition for 
     revocation.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `classified information' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1(a) of the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);
       ``(2) the term `national security' means the national 
     defense, foreign relations, or economic interests of the 
     United States;
       ``(3) the term `relevant committees' means the Committees 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(4) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, in consultation with the Attorney General.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     219 the following:

``Sec. 220. Designation.''.

       (e) Mandatory Detention of Criminal Gang Members.--
       (1) In general.--Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``or'' at the end; 
     and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(J) or 
     deportable under section 217(a)(2)(G),''.
       (2) Annual report.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     (beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation 
     with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit a report 
     to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and of the Senate on the number of aliens 
     detained under the amendments made by paragraph (1).
       (f) Asylum Claims Based on Gang Affiliation.--
       (1) Inapplicability of restriction on removal to certain 
     countries.--Section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(b)(3)(B)) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``who is described 
     in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or section 237(a)(2)(G)(i) or who 
     is'' after ``to an alien''.
       (2) Ineligibility for asylum.--Section 208(b)(2)(A) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)) (as amended by section 201 of 
     this Act) is further amended--
       (A) in clause (v), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (C) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) the alien is described in section 212(a)(2)(J)(i) or 
     section 237(a)(2)(G)(i); or''.
       (g) Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244 of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
       (2) in subparagraph (c)(2)(B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) the alien is, or at any time has been, described in 
     section 212(a)(2)(J) or section 237(a)(2)(G).''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may detain an alien 
     provided temporary protected status under this section 
     whenever appropriate under any other provision of law.''.
       (h) Special Immigrant Juvenile Visas.--Section 
     101(a)(27)(J)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(iii)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'';
       (2) in subclause (II), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) no alien who is, or at any time has been, described 
     in section 212(a)(2)(J) or section 237(a)(2)(G) shall be 
     eligible for any immigration benefit under this 
     subparagraph;''.

       (i) Parole.--An alien described in section 212(a)(2)(J) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection 
     (b), shall not be eligible for parole under section 
     212(d)(5)(A) of such Act unless--
       (1) the alien is assisting or has assisted the United 
     States Government in a law enforcement matter, including a 
     criminal investigation; and

[[Page 14490]]

       (2) the alien's presence in the United States is required 
     by the Government with respect to such assistance.
       (j) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to acts that occur before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador) and 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3697.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member 
Removal Act. I introduced this bill with Chairman Goodlatte and 
Representatives Comstock and King for a very simple reason: the United 
States is facing an ever-growing danger from transnational gangs, and 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, needs 
more tools to deal with this danger.
  The Federal Government's most important responsibility is the safety 
and security of the American people. However, we are not fulfilling 
that responsibility when we allow gangs to illegally enter our country 
with the express purpose of victimizing innocent Americans.
  In communities across our country, transnational gangs are using 
violence and the threat of violence to create a climate of fear that 
allows them to operate with near impunity. They regularly target local 
business owners and law enforcement officials. Innocent bystanders, 
those unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are 
also paying a price.
  According to ICE, these gangs ``have grown to become a serious threat 
in American communities across the Nation--not only in cities, but 
increasingly in suburban and even rural areas. Entire neighborhoods and 
sometimes whole communities are held hostage by and subjected to their 
violence.''
  Furthermore, ICE has found that, ``membership of these violent 
transnational gangs is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.''
  The most infamous transnational gang, of course, is MS-13, which 
entered the U.S. in the 1980s. Today, it has over 10,000 gang members 
operating inside the United States alone. At every level, our 
enforcement officials are working to curb this growing threat with 
large-scale enforcement actions. These include Operation New Dawn, 
which netted almost 1,100 arrests over a 6-week period.
  However, we all know that prosecution of criminal gang members is 
notoriously difficult. This is because victims and witnesses of gang 
crime are often reluctant to testify because of the quite reasonable 
fear of retaliation against them or their families, thus many gang 
members are never convicted of the crimes they have committed.
  The question is often asked: Why should law-abiding Americans have to 
wait until an alien gang member has committed a deportable offense? Why 
not deport the gang member before he has a chance to victimize more 
innocent people? The answer is that current immigration law contains 
dangerous loopholes that alien gang members are exploiting.
  Currently, an alien may not be deported, even if he is known to be a 
member of a criminal gang or participating in gang activities. ICE must 
wait for the gang member to be first convicted of a deportable offense.
  H.R. 3697 changes that. For the first time, ICE will be permitted to 
place alien gang members into removal proceedings on the grounds of 
being criminal gang members. Our bill sets out clear specifications for 
what crimes are considered to be gang related, relying on longstanding 
Federal criminal law to determine what a gang or group consists of.
  In addition, our bill permits the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
using procedures already used by the Secretary of State, to designate a 
gang as a criminal gang. This would be done in a transparent way 
through notification to Congress and publication in the Federal 
Register and with meaningful judicial review.
  The conclusive decision as to whether to place an alien in removal 
proceedings would rest with the Department of Homeland Security. When 
an alien is charged, the charge must be proven by evidence on the 
record in immigration court.
  I have heard some uneasiness that ICE will use these provisions to 
charge any alien they encounter with gang activity. Our bill does not 
allow that. As a former immigration attorney, I know the importance of 
due process and know how important it is for illegal immigrants and for 
Americans and everyone within the jurisdictions of the immigration 
court to receive due process. I can tell you that our bill is 
consistent with due process.
  Under H.R. 3697, ICE has the burden of proof when charging an alien 
with a deportable offense. While the alien has the burden of proof when 
they are inadmissible, a denial of gang membership should be sufficient 
to shift the burden back to the government. The government must 
convince an immigration judge of its case. Of course, an alien ordered 
removed as a gang member has every right to appeal that order to the 
Board of Immigration Appeals and then to the Federal courts.
  Ultimately, H.R. 3697 is about providing law enforcement with the 
necessary tools to combat gang activity in every community in our 
country. This is essential if we, as elected officials, are committed 
to our responsibility to keep the American people safe and secure. That 
is the purpose of H.R. 3697.
  This is the third time this year the House is holding a floor vote on 
portions of the Davis-Oliver Act, which I introduced back in May, to 
make our country safer through stronger immigration enforcement.
  I am proud that the House passed the first two bills that came from 
Davis-Oliver, Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3697 as well.
  We must take action now or watch crime rates rise in our Nation. 
There is no place in our country for criminal alien gang members, and 
any legislation which makes it easier to deport them deserves the 
support of every Member of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697. Gang members and 
serious criminals should not be granted admission to the United States. 
That is not a controversial position. I think almost every Member of 
Congress, Democrat or Republican, agrees with that. It is our highest 
priority to protect the safety of the American people. That is a duty I 
think we all take seriously, but this bill does something other than 
that.
  The title of the bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, 
and, as we have seen in the past, there are times when the name of a 
bill is not always reflected in the actual proposed language of the 
statute, and that is true in this case.
  First, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gang as ``an ongoing 
group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that 
has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more'' of a 
wide range of offenses. This may seem reasonable until you look at the 
offenses listed.
  These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person 
would think of as a gang member--for example, one of the offenses 
relates to the harboring of undocumented immigrants. This statute 
includes people who give shelter to, transport, or provide other kinds 
of aid to undocumented immigrants. That means that, under this bill, a 
religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a 
criminal gang.

[[Page 14491]]

  This isn't just theoretical. During the 1980s, members of the faith 
community were repeatedly criminally prosecuted for providing 
transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one case, the FBI even 
infiltrated a Bible study group to learn about the group's plan to 
support undocumented immigrants. Under this bill, DHS would have 
expanded authority to go after all such groups as criminal gangs. In 
one fell swoop, it could turn nuns into gang members.
  The bill also refers to felony drug offense, which would include the 
repeated possession of marijuana. In California, my State, along with 
several other States, voters decided to decriminalize marijuana--first, 
for medical uses, then later for broader uses. Under this bill, a group 
that regularly gets together to use marijuana that is legal under State 
law would still be committing a felony under Federal law and would be a 
criminal gang. That could include groups of people who are using 
marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat epilepsy or cancer who are 
taking marijuana consistent with State law.
  Second, the bill authorizes DHS to deny admission or to deport any 
immigrant, including one who has no criminal history or gang 
affiliation whatsoever, so long as DHS merely believes the person is 
associated with such a group.
  Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill expressly authorize DHS officers 
and immigration judges to deport an immigrant on nothing more than a 
reason to believe that the individual has been a member of a gang or 
has participated in the activities of a gang as defined under these 
rather broad provisions. There is no need for conviction or even an 
arrest. All DHS needs is a belief that the individual has assisted any 
group of five or more people that DHS believes has committed one of 
these long list of offenses.
  This belief could be as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the 
neighborhood they live in, or the individuals in their family. This is 
not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Chairman 
Goodlatte had a self-actualizing amendment when the rule was adopted to 
change the evidentiary standard. I think it recognizes the problem with 
the bill.
  The amendment really doesn't cure the problem with the breadth of the 
criminal gang definition, and it doesn't change the standard that 
applies to people seeking admission to the country, including those who 
are seeking to reunite with U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and 
children.
  Just this week, I met with actual police officers who asked me to do 
what I could to defeat this unwise bill. They know, because they are 
out on the front lines, that gangs are a real problem, and they told me 
that bills like this, which could turn religious individuals, nuns, 
cancer victims into targets, is just going to get in their way as 
police officers.
  If we want to keep America safe and admit immigrants who do not have 
a felony record, I would suggest that we consider the bipartisan Dream 
Act, H.R. 3440. This bill would provide a path to legal permanent 
residence for 800,000 young people who were raised in America, who 
consider this to be their home, who represent the very best of our 
country.
  Instead of debating whether we should allow ICE officers to target 
religious workers, we should focus on what really makes this country 
great.
  I would like to note that there has been much discussion about the 
drafting of this bill, and at the Rules Committee just last night, 
Republicans defended the bill by asserting that the broad provisions 
would not be abused by ICE officers. Even if they could target the 
nuns, they wouldn't do that. Even if they could target the cancer 
victims or the teenagers smoking marijuana after school as gang 
members, they wouldn't do that.

                              {time}  0930

  Now, I am not suggesting that the teenagers smoking marijuana after 
school is a good thing. But it is not MS-13. And that is what we are 
trying to make a distinction here between, a gang abatement bill and 
garden-variety activity that we may not like.
  One really very good and very thoughtful Member on the other side of 
the aisle suggested that, if there is a problem with the bill, we will 
just come back and fix it. Here is why that is a problem: We know that 
when we draft something in a poor manner, it often goes on to be 
enforced and we never get around to fixing it.
  I will give an example. We passed years ago, and I objected at the 
time--Henry Hyde was chairman of the committee--a provision that barred 
people from gaining status if they provided material support to 
terrorists.
  Well, that sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean?
  It turns out that material support--which was never qualified to 
include support given under duress or given in the ordinary course of a 
commercial activity--has now been used to bar people who are not 
terrorists, who didn't give material support.
  I will give you an example. A group of women called the Tortilla 
Terrorists are women who were threatened with their lives and made 
tortillas because they were threatened with death by guerrilla actors. 
Now, they were denied asylum because of the tortillas, hence the name 
the Tortilla Terrorists.
  I think most of us would agree that is not terrorism. Yet, we drafted 
the bill in such a way that the Department felt that they had to 
enforce it in that way, and we have never gone back to it.
  So to think that somehow if we write a law poorly, it is going to be 
fixed in the administration, that is just wrong. We should step back 
from this. We should work together. This was just introduced last week.
  Now, I know the SAFE Act had hearings years ago, but I think we would 
be better off if we sat down together, if we reasoned together, if we 
worked through the defects in this draft, and came up with a bill that 
really targeted MS-13 members, something that we could all support and 
that well-served our country.
  I will just say that Sister Simone Campbell, one of the leading nuns 
in America, explained her opposition to this bill. She said:

       The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so 
     sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, 
     transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could 
     be found liable of criminal activity. This statute has been 
     used against religious workers in the past, and the bill 
     tries to make it a weapon for the future.

  Let's listen to the nuns like we did in school, and step back, 
redraft this bill, and oppose this poorly crafted measure today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Comstock), the lead sponsor of this bill.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, early this summer, on a Friday night, 
just about 30 miles from this Capital, I went on a ride-along in my 
district with our Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force.
  A young boy standing on the sidewalk along Sterling Boulevard in 
Sterling, Virginia, caught the eye of a veteran member of our task 
force. The young man on the street looked about 15 or 16 years old, but 
he was actually a 22-year-old member of the transnational violent 
street gang known as MS-13. He was covered in MS-13 gang tattoos--on 
his chest, his back, his feet.
  It turned out, he had been in jail in El Salvador for murder as a 
teenager, and he had already been deported from the U.S. twice for 
engaging in violent crimes here.
  Three other of the estimated thousands of MS-13 gang members that are 
just here in our Capital region were also picked up that night. There 
have been cases in northern Virginia where a suspected member of the 
MS-13 gang has been deported five times, yet returned again to continue 
their gang activity.
  At a town festival in Herndon this year, the gang task force 
identified--because they go to these events and they see these people--
an estimated 200 to 300 suspected gang members milling about among the 
families who were getting cotton candy and hot dogs for

[[Page 14492]]

their kids. They are right there looking to recruit in their own 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, since November 2016, at least eight murders have been 
committed and tied to MS-13 and other gangs in our area, representing a 
166 percent increase over the last year in the northern Virginia 
region.
  An MS-13-linked vicious murder occurred in November 2015. Of course, 
I should acknowledge that they are all vicious when you are talking 
about MS-13. This happened on an Alexandria playground in the evening 
just about 8 miles from this Capital, and it resulted in the death of 
24-year-old Jose Luis Ferman Perez. He was nearly decapitated in the 
machete attack. His body was left on the playground and was found by a 
woman walking her dog the next morning. It could have been one of the 
kids playing on the playground finding that.
  The Washington Post has highlighted how the 2014 border surge has 
contributed to the MS-13 problem, saying: ``The violent street gang is 
on the rise in the United States, fueled, in part, by the surge in 
unaccompanied minors.''
  A recent Washington Post article documented the case of gang members 
who videotaped the murder of a 15-year-old girl, Damaris Reyes Rivas, 
who was savagely beaten by multiple people, and repeatedly stabbed by 
all of these gang members. The video of this was intended to be sent to 
MS-13 gang leadership in El Salvador to confirm that this greenlit 
murder had been carried out.
  Tragically, MS-13 targets and preys upon their own community, on 
young people who may not have much of a family structure around them. 
Sadly, these children and young people were actually fleeing MS-13 in 
their own countries of El Salvador, Honduras, or Guatemala, only to 
come here and be targeted.
  There was one case that, fortunately, the Northern Virginia Regional 
Gang Task Force was able to intercept, where a brother was trying to 
enlist his own brother to join the MS-13 gang. And when he refused to, 
he put a hit out on him. Fortunately, the gang task force was able to 
stop that.
  We cannot allow this to stand. Mr. Speaker, the Northern Virginia 
Regional Gang Task Force is battling this problem in our region, but 
they still need more resources. In our appropriations process, we have 
directed more resources for our regional task forces. I have personally 
talked to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is very familiar 
with this MS-13 problem, having been a U.S. attorney in the Maryland 
region.
  Our regional task force is comprised of 13 local, State and Federal 
law enforcement agencies, and the task force has a three-pronged 
approach: education, intervention and prevention, and enforcement. We 
need to provide support on all three of these fronts.
  I witnessed firsthand the exhausting work of the task force; the 
technology they utilize on the streets that was able to immediately 
identify just with fingerprints the background of this gang member that 
they were able to arrest; the detailed knowledge they have of our 
communities and our neighborhoods; the positive relationships they have 
with the people in these communities, the very people that are being 
victimized; and the challenges they face with this problem that has 
returned to our area.
  That is why I sponsored H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member 
Removal Act, with my colleagues, so it will provide additional tools to 
law enforcement. It will ensure that when ICE positively identifies a 
known alien gang member, they may act immediately. This legislation 
identifies gang membership and participation in gang activity as 
grounds for inadmissibility and removability. We don't have to wait 
until these brutal killers wield their machetes or leave another body 
on a children's playground.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. This is a marked improvement over current law where 
ICE must wait for specific convictions before removal proceedings can 
commence. The bill preserves, as my colleague has already identified, 
all the due process and appellate rights afforded to any alien facing 
deportation.
  An immigration judge must be convinced that the evidence in the 
record supports the finding. I encourage support of this legislation 
today, which will strengthen and enforce our laws against known violent 
gang members. I also will continue to work with my colleagues on other 
matters, such as the bill I introduced earlier this summer, to provide 
additional resources to our regional gang task forces for their 
education, intervention, and enforcement efforts.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said about this body that if you invent a 
nice enough title for a bill, it doesn't matter what you write in the 
bill because all people know is what the title is. This bill is a good 
example of that.
  Who is in favor of criminal alien gangs?
  No one. But this bill has received no committee consideration in 
which the questions could have been asked and the answers given to make 
sure that the bill would do what its sponsors say it does.
  But this legislation wouldn't provide decent protections against gang 
violence. It would shred due process protections and would allow 
deportation of innocent immigrants based on the flimsiest of evidence.
  It would establish a Star Chamber-like process for designating 
criminal gangs that would provide virtually no opportunity for them to 
contest such a designation. Once a group is designated as a gang, an 
immigrant who is determined to be a member of that gang--determined 
under undefined procedures and standards--would be almost assured of 
being deported and would be subject to mandatory detention while 
awaiting removal.
  The procedures under this bill would be laughable if they did not 
have such deadly consequences for so many innocent people. Suppose 
there are some people in my neighborhood that I think are up to no 
good. Maybe I have good evidence that they are committing crimes, or 
maybe I just don't like them. Either way, I submit a tip to Homeland 
Security that the group is engaged in activity that qualifies as a 
criminal gang under this bill.
  Then, based on undefined and unknown procedures, the DHS can 
designate that group as a criminal gang. In doing so, it would amass 
some sort of administrative record, which is also completely undefined 
in the bill, but we know it can include secret evidence. No notice 
would be given to the group that is under review, and no opportunity 
would be given to present evidence contesting the designation; no 
exculpatory evidence.
  After designation, there is a process for judicial review; but unless 
the group has the habit of scouring the Federal Register, it would have 
no idea that it has been labeled a gang and that it needs to go to 
court in 30 days. If, somehow, the group does learn of its designation, 
it has just 30 days to contest it, and only in a Federal Court of 
Appeals in Washington, D.C.
  That review, however, would be based entirely on the administrative 
record amassed by the government. The group would have no opportunity 
to submit evidence to rebut the designation, which renders the entire 
review process meaningless. That is not due process under the 
Constitution. That is a sort of stacked process you would expect in a 
banana republic or in Russia.
  It gets even worse. Under this bill, any alien is deportable if he or 
she is or has been a member of a designated gang or has participated in 
the gang's activities, knowing that would further its illegal activity.
  But who determines that a person is a member of a gang? By what 
procedure? In what forum or what court? Using what standard?
  The bill, given the Goodlatte amendment, does not say.
  A person need not have been convicted or even charged with a crime to

[[Page 14493]]

be deportable under this bill; and even when they are in removal 
proceedings, they would not be permitted to challenge the gang 
designation that landed them in those proceedings. Thus, we will have 
people deported on the basis of an unfair and secret process, with no 
notice and no meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for the 
deportation. That turns due process completely on its head.
  Keeping out members of MS-13 and other deadly gangs is a worthy goal, 
but this bill would not do that. It would have disastrous consequences 
for thousands of people each year who may or may not be members of a 
gang, who may or may not have any evidence against them, who will 
inevitably be caught up in its hash and overbroad provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, just last week, President Trump upended the lives of 
800,000 DREAMers who now face the possibility of being dragged away 
from the only country they know. Our highest priority should be 
providing these young, undocumented Americans the legal status they 
need to continue serving our Nation and being productive members of 
their communities.
  I notice that the Speaker has said that, while he supports relief for 
the DREAMers, that the bill has to go through a committee.
  Why didn't this bill have to go through a committee?
  Instead, the Republican majority seeks to distract us from the plight 
of the DREAMers by returning to its mass deportation agenda based on 
the fear and dehumanization of immigrants.
  This bill brings shame upon this House and this Nation's tradition of 
due process and fundamental fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and 
unconscionable legislation.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I know we spent a lot of time in committee 
talking about a lot of different issues, but maybe the gentleman 
forgets that we had 3 whole days of hearings on the Davis-Oliver Act, 
which this bill was included in, and many arguments were made against 
the Davis-Oliver Act. Most of the arguments that are being made today 
were not made against this portion of the act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King).

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho 
for yielding. I certainly commend Mrs. Comstock for the outstanding job 
she has done on this.
  I stand here in strong support of this bill. It is absolutely 
essential that this Congress does everything it can to eradicate and 
destroy MS-13. It would be shameful not to.
  MS-13 has turned my district into killing fields. In the last year 
and a half, 17 innocent young people have been slaughtered with 
machetes and knives by MS-13. These are all young people, and these are 
children of legal and illegal immigrants documented and undocumented. 
It is the immigrant community that is being turned into a chamber of 
horrors by MS-13. Children are afraid to go to school; their parents 
are afraid to allow their kids to go out at night.
  There have been 270 arrests in the last year alone. MS-13 is 
terrorizing communities in my district within 15 to 20 minutes of my 
home.
  I am proud that this bill has been endorsed by the Sergeants 
Benevolent Association of the NYPD.
  Also, when I talk about 17 murders, it is exactly 1 year ago this 
week that two young teenage girls, Nisa Mickens and Kayla Cuevas, both 
constituents of mine, were found slaughtered, their bodies desecrated, 
mutilated, and torn apart by MS-13 because they happened to be in the 
wrong place at the wrong time--no gang connections, nothing whatsoever.
  So this is something which has required extensive coordination 
between the Suffolk County Police Department, ICE, Homeland Security 
Investigations, Homeland Security, FBI task forces, and the U.S. 
Attorney's Office all working around the clock to try to eradicate this 
evil.
  But more has to be done, and that is what this bill is about. We 
cannot allow gang members to be taking advantage of loopholes in the 
immigration laws. To me, nothing could be more shameful than for us not 
to do our job. Nothing would be more violative of our role under the 
Constitution to protect people from all enemies foreign and domestic 
than for us not to pass legislation such as this. This is absolutely 
essential. This isn't theoretical, and this is not hypothetical.
  For those who are concerned about immigrants and those who are 
concerned about DACA--and I support DACA--and those who are supportive 
of the helpless in our society, how can you take any action which would 
prevent us from going after MS-13? MS-13 is a violent and vicious gang, 
and if we don't stand together as one, if we continue to make 
hypothetical arguments or a parade of horribles, we are subjecting and 
putting more young people--innocent young people--documented and 
undocumented, in the line of fire and putting them into the killing 
fields.
  I applaud the President, I applaud the Attorney General, and I also 
support the Democratic leaders in Suffolk County, all of whom have come 
together in a bipartisan effort to stamp out MS-13. But we must do 
more. This bill is a major step in that direction. I am proud to 
support it. I am proud to stand with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Labrador, and 
Mrs. Comstock in doing this.
  This is reality. This isn't make-believe. This isn't something we can 
dream about, something that may go bad. This is going bad day after day 
after day in my district and districts throughout the country. These 
are animals. They need to be eradicated from our society, and this bill 
is a major step in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the bill and urge its 
adoption.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this bill was indeed 
part of the Davis-Oliver Act which did go through the Judiciary 
Committee. But that bill was over 200 pages long. It had many problems. 
It was impossible to address all the problems. We would be there for a 
month if we had gone through line by line. It was not a good process. 
If it had been perfect, I would note that Chairman Goodlatte would not 
have had to have his amendment to remove the reason-to-believe standard 
that was in the bill that was part of the Davis-Oliver Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is as much a criminal injustice bill as it is 
immigration. Serving as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, 
Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, I am both a 
believer in the dangers of MS-13 as many of my colleagues are. I offer 
concern and recognition of their violence.
  That is why this bill should be defeated because something as crucial 
as this does not need to be litigated in the courts. You make a bill 
with such insufferable frailties constitutionally without 
bipartisanship, without any hearings, and without the ability to set a 
legal standard of what is the definition or the understanding of a 
criminal gang.
  This is done in consultation with the Attorney General, who is an 
opponent of any form of immigration, legal or undocumented, consulting 
with the Homeland Security Secretary of which I am a member of that 
committee, and the dominant factor will be the Attorney General talking 
to the Homeland Security Secretary about criminal elements. Who do you 
think will prevail? How many will be swept up in this expansive, 
nonorganized, nonorderly, and non-due process legislation?
  The frailties of this bill are the very number, if you will, five. 
Five persons can be called a criminal gang. Mothers and fathers, 
listen: innocent behavior of young people tattooed or having friends 
could be called a criminal gang. Yes, individuals who have status could 
be deported, an ongoing group, club, organizations, or associations. 
They have expanded this, maybe high school kids

[[Page 14494]]

who may gather to smoke marijuana. Maybe this would cover sanctuary 
sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants.
  All we are asking is let us work together to get a bill that fights 
MS-13, not fights innocent people. The bill defines criminal gang, a 
group that has been designated as a criminal gang, as I said, by the 
DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General. It is unwise 
and irresponsible to not have the kind of organized framework.
  That happens from not having committee hearings and markups. It 
happens when you don't engage police officers in a wide breadth from 
many different aspects.
  I am disappointed that this bill did not have the opportunity to have 
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations have input, and that would have been done if we had a 
full hearing or a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security 
Subcommittee, or a hearing in the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, 
and Investigations Subcommittee, or a hearing in the full committee as 
I mentioned.
  It lacks a constitutional construct. It begins to criminalize for 
associations. We are heading down a terribly unsophisticated road. 
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention's recent report, nationally, 48,000 juvenile offenders were 
held in residential facilities. We don't need to add more, but here is 
the outcome: they are not just held, they are deported.
  Again, I emphasize to my colleagues that the ages could be very young 
because there are no firewalls dealing with the ages that might be 
swept up in this wide sweep of those who deserve to be responded to in 
a way that is not this bill. This bill pretends to be wrapping up and 
rounding up bad actors that are undocumented immigrants. That is the 
big calling card. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``Fact check: Immigration 
doesn't bring crime into U.S.,'' by PBS NewsHour.

                 [From the PBS Newshour, Feb. 3, 2017]

     Fact Check: Immigration Doesn't Bring Crime Into U.S. Data Say

                         (By The Conversation)

       Editor's note: In his first week in office, President 
     Donald Trump showed he intends to follow through on his 
     immigration promises. A major focus of his campaign was on 
     removing immigrants who, he said, were increasing crime in 
     American communities.
       In his acceptance speech at the Republican National 
     Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by 
     undocumented immigrants and said:
       ``They are being released by the tens of thousands into our 
     communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or 
     resources . . . We are going to build a great border wall to 
     stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, 
     and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.''
       Now as president, he has signed executive orders that 
     restrict entry of immigrants from seven countries into the 
     U.S. and authorize the construction of a wall along the U.S. 
     border with Mexico. He also signed an order to prioritize the 
     removal of ``criminal aliens'' and withhold federal funding 
     from ``sanctuary cities.''
       But, what does research say about how immigration impacts 
     crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for 
     answers.


                     Across 200 metropolitan areas

(By Robert Adelman, University at Buffalo, and Lesley Reid, University 
                              of Alabama)

       Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring 
     assumption that increases in immigration are associated with 
     increases in crime.
       Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has 
     widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early 
     20th-century presidential commissions that found no backing 
     for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are 
     always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates 
     that immigrants commit fewer crimes, on average, than native-
     born Americans.
       Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations 
     have lower crime rates, on average, than those with minimal 
     immigrant populations.
       In a paper published this year in the Journal of Ethnicity 
     in Criminal Justice, we, along with our colleagues Gail 
     Markle, Saskia Weiss and Charles Jaret, investigated the 
     immigration-crime relationship.
       We analyzed census data spanning four decades from 1970 to 
     2010 for 200 randomly selected metropolitan areas, which 
     include center cities and surrounding suburbs. Examining data 
     over time allowed us to assess whether the relationship 
     between immigration and crime changed with the broader U.S. 
     economy and the origin and number of immigrants.
       The most striking finding from our research is that for 
     murder, robbery, burglary and larceny, as immigration 
     increased, crime decreased, on average, in American 
     metropolitan areas. The only crime that immigration had no 
     impact on was aggravated assault. These associations are 
     strong and stable evidence that immigration does not cause 
     crime to increase in U.S. metropolitan areas, and may even 
     help reduce it.
       There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why 
     more immigration leads to less crime. The most common 
     explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by 
     revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant 
     communities and generating economic growth.


                        Across 20 years of data

  (By Charis E. Kubrin, University of California, Irvine, and Graham 
                  Ousey, College of William and Mary)

       For the last decade, we have been studying how immigration 
     to an area impacts crime.
       Across our studies, one finding remains clear: Cities and 
     neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have 
     lower rates of crime and violence, all else being equal.
       Our research also points to the importance of city context 
     for understanding the immigration-crime relationship. In one 
     study, for example, we found that cities with historically 
     high immigration levels are especially likely to enjoy 
     reduced crime rates as a result of their immigrant 
     populations.
       Findings from our most recent study, forthcoming in the 
     inaugural issue of The Annual Review of Criminology, only 
     strengthen these conclusions.
       We conducted a meta-analysis, meaning we systematically 
     evaluated available research on the immigration-crime 
     relationship in neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas 
     across the U.S. We examined findings from more than 50 
     studies published between 1994 and 2014, including studies 
     conducted by our copanelists, Adelman and Reid.
       Our analysis of the literature reveals that immigration has 
     a weak crime-suppressing effect. In other words, more 
     immigration equals less crime.
       There were some individual studies that found that with an 
     increase in immigration, there was an increase in crime. 
     However, there were 2.5 times as many findings that showed 
     immigration was actually correlated with less crime. And, the 
     most common finding was that immigration had no impact on 
     crime.
       The upshot? We find no evidence to indicate that 
     immigration leads to more crime and it may, in fact, suppress 
     it.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, opposing this, in particular, I would 
like to add this letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
Human Rights and a letter from the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2017.

       Oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act''

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, I am writing to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 3697, which creates new, sweeping grounds 
     for barring entry to or deporting immigrants based on the 
     mere suspicion of gang affiliation. We oppose H.R. 3697 for 
     the following reasons:
       It would subject people who have never committed a crime to 
     deportation, creating a new definition of ``criminal gang'' 
     that is unworkably vague and could cover a wide range of 
     organizations ranging from churches to fraternities to 
     political groups. It shifts the burden to individuals to 
     prove they did not know they were affiliated with a gang that 
     committed qualifying offenses, even though proving such a 
     negative is often impossible.
       It would expand the use of mandatory, no-bond detention to 
     people facing removal under the bill, even if they have not 
     been convicted of any criminal offenses.
       Deportations based on suspected gang membership or 
     affiliation would likely rely on flawed gang databases, which 
     are rife with inconsistent definitions, improper 
     documentation procedures, and inadequate safeguards.
       Creating a new ground of deportability for suspected gang 
     members is also unnecessary, because the government already 
     has enough tools and resources to deport such individuals. 
     Most states and the federal government also have laws that 
     punish or enhance sentences for individuals suspected of 
     being gang members, recruiting gang members, or committing 
     crimes while in a gang. In addition, DHS has long prioritized 
     its resources to target suspected gang members for 
     deportation.
       H.R. 3697 will disproportionately harm younger immigrants--
     particularly unaccompanied minors, some of whom flee their 
     home countries to escape gang violence,

[[Page 14495]]

     forced drug trafficking, and sexual violence, and who are at 
     high risk of being coerced to participate in criminal 
     activity. It will also indiscriminately bar these immigrants 
     from asylum, withholding of removal, or other forms of 
     humanitarian relief.
       Only a week after the elimination of the Deferred Action 
     for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, we are deeply 
     disappointed that Congress's first legislative response is to 
     further erode due process protections for immigrants and put 
     them at an even greater risk of deportation. We urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 3697.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Vanita Gupta,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                              American Immigration


                                          Lawyers Association.

  AILA Recommends VOTE NO on H.R. 3697--Revised to Include Goodlatte 
    Amendment, 9/13/2017--``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act''

       As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration 
     lawyers and law professors, AILA recommends that Members of 
     Congress oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member 
     Removal Act.'' The bill is scheduled to come before the House 
     Rules Committee on September 12th and to the floor in the 
     days immediately thereafter.
       While Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte claims that H.R. 3697 is 
     a ``common sense bill to protect our communities,'' in fact 
     the bill will do just the opposite: undermine due process and 
     enable the Trump Administration to deport massive numbers of 
     foreign nationals who pose no threat to our communities or 
     national security. The bill is overbroad and provides 
     government officials with new, expansive powers to detain, 
     deport, and block noncitizens from the United States 
     regardless of whether that individual is suspected of, 
     charged with, or convicted of any specific crime, or whether 
     the individual poses any risk to public safety. The bill does 
     not advance its purported public safety goals, and moreover 
     will place the lives of asylum seekers and other vulnerable 
     individuals at greater risk of harm.
       At a time when our nation urgently needs Congress to reform 
     our immigration laws, its leadership has chosen instead to 
     scapegoat immigrants and grant far-reaching enforcement 
     powers to the government that will result in abuse and 
     overreach. More than four years have passed since the Senate 
     passed a comprehensive reform bill. During that time, the 
     House has refused, and still refuses, to address the needs of 
     families and businesses waiting in lengthy backlogs for visas 
     and green cards. The House has yet to bring to a vote a bill 
     that provides a solution for Dreamers and other unauthorized 
     persons. American families, businesses and communities need 
     reform that will strengthen America. H.R. 3697 takes our 
     country in the wrong direction and should be rejected.
       Below is a list of the most harmful provisions in H.R. 
     3697.
       H.R. 3697 creates a sweeping, overly-broad definition of 
     ``criminal gang'' in immigration law (Section 2(a)). The bill 
     defines ``criminal gang'' as a group, club or association of 
     five or more people who, within the last five years, had or 
     has as one of its primary purposes the commission of a wide 
     range of conduct including any federally defined felony drug 
     offense, harboring of immigrants (under INA Sec. 274), the 
     use of expired identification documents, or obstruction of 
     justice.
       The bill's over-inclusive definition imposes criminal 
     liability on non-criminal associations, creating the illusion 
     of a gang where none in fact exists. Under this bill, many 
     groups could qualify as criminal gangs including a church 
     group which elects to offer ``sanctuary'' to an undocumented 
     immigrant or a fraternity whose members use expired 
     identification documents to purchase liquor.
       This definition of ``criminal gang'' is broader than the 
     existing federal criminal law sentencing enhancement for 
     ``criminal street gang'' in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 521(a). The gang 
     definition in H.R. 3697 is also far broader than most state 
     law definitions of criminal gangs. Moreover, INA Sec. 101(53) 
     permits the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, to use the above criteria to designate a 
     ``criminal gang.''
       H.R. 3697 adds inadmissibility and deportability grounds 
     that violate due process (Sections 2(b) and 2(c)). H.R. 3697 
     enables an immigration official to deny admission to a 
     noncitizen if the official has ``reason to believe'' the 
     person is or has ever been a member of a ``criminal gang'' or 
     participated in activities associated with such group. The 
     ``reason to believe'' standard is a low evidentiary standard 
     and does not require a conviction or even an arrest
       Under this low standard, the bill will heighten the risk 
     that non-dangerous people will be incorrectly and unfairly 
     classified as gang members. These provisions authorize 
     government officials to target people for their mere 
     association with groups considered to be dangerous rather 
     than for the person's own specific conduct. Authorizing guilt 
     by association has been shown to lead law enforcement to 
     engage in discriminatory enforcement and to depend on 
     unreliable factors as tattoos, style of dress, ethnic 
     background, or neighborhood associations. Under this bill, an 
     immigration official may wrongly label a minor as a gang 
     member for do nothing more than living in a neighborhood with 
     a large number of immigrants and spending time with a 
     suspected gang member or for displaying the flag of his home 
     country.
       Goodlatte amendment: The original version of H.R. 3697 
     submitted to Rules Committee would have allowed this low 
     ``reason to believe'' standard to apply not only to 
     admissions but also to deportations of any noncitizen, 
     including lawful permanent residents. An amendment offered by 
     Chairman Goodlatte that is now included in the bill removes 
     ``the reason to believe'' standard with respect to 
     deportation. Even with this change, the bill would authorize 
     immigration officials to deport lawful permanent residents 
     that are associated with a group labeled a ``criminal gang,'' 
     including a group that is wrongfully designated as a gang. As 
     revised by the Goodlatte Amendment, the bill still applies 
     the ``reason to believe'' standard to every individual who is 
     seeking admission--which constitutes the vast majority of 
     those who are targeted for enforcement.
       H.R. 3697 imposes mandatory detention on anyone, including 
     lawful permanent residents, that an immigration official 
     deems a member of a criminal gang (Sections 2(e) and 2(i)). 
     This provision requires ICE to detain a person regardless of 
     whether that person actually poses a danger to the community 
     Moreover, H.R. 3697 provides no opportunity for the person to 
     appear before a judge to request a custody determination--
     also known as a bond hearing. In this regard, the bill 
     completely eliminates an immigration Judge's review of the 
     officer's decision--a critical component of due process that 
     prevents unfair government deprivation of liberty.
       Any of the people who could be wrongfully labeled as 
     criminal gang members, innocent youth on the street and 
     church members, will be subject to automatic unreviewable 
     detention under this bill. Ensuring that no one is wrongfully 
     detained by the government is a hallmark of American values 
     and the Constitution. This bill tramples upon those 
     principles.
       H.R. 3697 threatens protection for vulnerable populations 
     (Sections 2(f), 2(g), 2(h)). H.R. 3697 not only gives broad 
     power to immigration officials to designate harmless people 
     as gang members, but it also renders people merely suspected 
     of gang association ineligible for humanitarian protection 
     such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, and Special 
     Immigrant Juvenile Status. This bill will prevent bona fide 
     refugees from seeking legal protection in the United States, 
     including children fleeing forced gang recruitment and other 
     victims of abuse encountered by gang members in their home 
     country. This bill could be used to deny these children 
     protection and safe haven in the U.S., deporting them back to 
     their persecutors in violation of U.S. and international 
     legal protections.
       America has always been a beacon of hope for those fleeing 
     persecution and oppression. H.R. 3697 will extinguish that 
     beacon by granting extensive powers to the government to 
     detain and deport people who seek protection. AILA urges 
     Congress not to pass legislation that undermines due process 
     protections and would further advance mass deportations of 
     immigrants and other foreign nationals.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. This clearly says this is not a bill against crime, 
it is a deportation bill.
  Save our children, Mr. Speaker. Let's do something different and 
defeat the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien 
Gang Member Removal Act of 2017''.
  This bill amends the INA to now include a definition for criminal 
street gangs as:
  An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more 
persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 
certain listed offenses, including: a felony drug offense, including 
felony simple possession of marijuana (this would impact high school 
kids who may gather to smoke marijuana); bringing in and harboring 
certain aliens under INA 274 (this would cover sanctuary sites like 
churches that aid undocumented immigrants); identity fraud offenses 
(including knowingly possessing a false identity document); crimes 
involving obstruction of justice; and burglary.
  This bill also defines ``criminal gang'': a group that has been 
designated as a criminal gang by the DHS Secretary in consultation with 
the Attorney General.
  I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because the bill 
contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an 
unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the 
American people.
  As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am 
highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any 
thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee.
  In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation 
that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale.
  This bill (1) is constitutionally unsound; (2) has a very low 
standard of proof; and (3) will

[[Page 14496]]

result in a sweeping effect among many innocent individuals who have 
not committed any crime, and thus, raises due process and racial 
profile concerns.
  First, this bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland 
Security is to determine its designation of a ``criminal street gang''.
  I offered an amendment that would have required a uniform legal 
standard, which will govern the identification of Criminal Street gang 
members for purposes of ICE enforcement.
  According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a 
13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of 
detention and deportation.
  If we begin to criminalize for associations then we are heading down 
a terribly dark road, particularly with youths. Statistics show that 
the brain does not fully develop until the age of 25. To punish them 
for mere association based on unsubstantiated evidence is bad 
legislation.
  According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were 
held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015.
  Due to this bill's vague nature, we would add to that alarming 
number, and further complicates mass incarceration.
  Second, the government's mere belief that someone is associated with 
a criminal gang is sufficient. Given the need for the Department of 
Homeland Security to come in and deport any individual, the bar must be 
higher than mere suspicion and/or belief. There must be a clear and 
convincing standard under these circumstances.
  This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent 
residence status; so long as the government believes the individual is 
associated with a criminal street gang.
  Even 13 or 14 year old juveniles that the government may believe are 
engaging in marijuana use, other drugs, or have association with 
criminal gangs would be subject to this bill's penalty.
  Third, this bill have a sweeping effect given its vague definition 
and overbroad targets for those who may harbor certain aliens and/or 
associate with criminal gang members.
  This bill has a discriminatory effect in targeting the immigrant 
community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises due process 
and racial profiling concerns.
  Criminal gangs are very complex and are not exclusive to the 
immigrant community.
  The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, 
and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally 
active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today.
  Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to 
control neighborhoods and boost their illegal moneymaking activities, 
which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human 
trafficking, and fraud.
  Strikingly, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a 
significantly larger percentage was non illegal immigrants, unlike the 
message purported in this bill.
  Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan 
Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican 
Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to 
name a few here that are mainly white supremacist gang groups. We could 
go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group.
  As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on 
behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee; 
and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree.
  So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits 
of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening.
  Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative 
process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will 
continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having 
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter.
  We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues 
with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up.
  So Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning 
where necessary on behalf of the American people.
  We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools, 
health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change, 
building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country 
together for ``all'' the American people, we are instead debating a 
damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on 
mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business.
  My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this 
bill. In its current form, it is bad for our country and does not keep 
our communities safe, but instead does the opposite.
  For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this bill.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I agree. We should save our children. We 
need to start deporting some criminal gang members.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), who is the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho and the 
chair of our subcommittee for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3697, the 
Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
  Transnational criminal gangs have declared war on the United States. 
Their tactics of intimidation and unspeakable mutilation and killing 
have permeated most every part of our country, including multiple 
instances in my own district. Most recently in Bedford County, 
Virginia, a young man was killed by alien members of MS-13.
  The Department of Homeland Security reports an ever-growing number of 
criminal aliens joining international gangs, such as MS-13, which alone 
has over 10,000 members within our borders. Whether these criminals 
came to this country illegally as unaccompanied minors, adults, or have 
valid visas or even green cards, it is time to send the message that 
this behavior will simply not be tolerated.
  Yet current immigration law includes no provision allowing for the 
removal of criminal gang members based on their membership in dangerous 
gangs or participation in gang activities. The result is 
unconscionable. ICE must sit on the sidelines and wait for known gang 
members to be arrested and convicted of specific offenses before 
removal proceedings may commence. Of course, with many victims and 
witnesses too petrified of retaliation against them and their families 
to cooperate with police, many gang members are never convicted of 
their crimes.
  This legislation provides a crucial tool so that ICE can seek to 
remove alien gang members before they are able to extort businesses and 
murder innocent Americans.
  In addition, this bill allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
designate organizations as criminal gangs utilizing the same 
transparent procedures used by the Secretary of State to designate 
foreign terrorist organizations. Finally, the bill ensures that 
criminal alien gang members cannot receive asylum and be released back 
onto our streets able to resume their criminal activities while being 
eligible for a vast array of Federal benefits.
  Eradicating the death grip that transnational criminal alien gangs 
hold over many of our communities, especially immigrant communities, is 
an important piece of immigration reform. I am pleased that this bill, 
which stems from legislation that the House has approved in the past 
and which has been approved by the Judiciary Committee in multiple 
Congresses, is being considered today.
  Now, I want to address the allegation that this bill targets priests, 
nuns, and garage band members. It is preposterous. This bill 
deliberately includes the longstanding Federal criminal offenses for 
alien smuggling as predicates for criminal gang activity. Coyotes and 
other criminal gangs make billions of dollars and put countless lives 
at risk through their alien smuggling activities.
  As former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who emigrated to the United 
States from Latin America as a child, stated: ``Smuggling aliens across 
our borders is a dangerous business. All too often, people entrust 
their lives to smugglers, only to die in the broiling desert, or 
suffocate in the back of locked, airless trucks while the smugglers 
profit.''
  ``These smuggling rings, which facilitate illegal entry into the 
United States and mercilessly exploit human beings for money, are a 
danger to immigrants and a threat to our national security. . . .''
  The Democrats are engaging in a huge amount of obfuscation. In the

[[Page 14497]]

past, House Democrats claimed the House passed legislation that would 
have strengthened Federal alien smuggling laws, would have had the 
effect of putting priests and nuns at risk of prosecution. The 
Democrats' clear implication was that these problems didn't exist under 
then-current law which remains current law.
  Let me quote. Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee, 
including John Conyers, Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Sheila Jackson 
Lee, they stated that the bill then under consideration goes far beyond 
increasing penalties for alien smuggling and jeopardizes the well-being 
of millions of Americans, neighbors, family members, faith 
institutions, and others who live and work with undocumented 
immigrants.
  Former Speaker Pelosi, the current minority leader, stated: ``Under 
the guise of an expansive definition of smuggling,''--the bill--``it 
could make criminals out of Catholic priests and nuns, ministers, 
rabbis, and social service workers who provide assistance and acts of 
charity to those in need.''
  The Democrats can't have it both ways. They can't argue one day that 
we can't change current law because that would result in putting 
priests and nuns at risk and argue the next day that, without any 
evidence, current law already puts them at risk. To add to the 
hypocrisy, the House Democrats supported an amendment which passed by 
voice vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Virginia an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. So to add to the controversy, the House Democrats 
supported an amendment which passed by voice vote to add human 
smuggling to the list of predicate acts under the Federal money 
laundering statute.

                              {time}  1000

  The Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
simply do not target clergy and others who do not make distinctions 
based on immigration status when serving those in spiritual or material 
need.
  The use of such laws against religious organizations and other 
humanitarian groups has been practically nonexistent. Of course, as in 
the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, when religious organizations 
engage in the smuggling of illegal aliens into the United States, they 
would be subject to prosecution, just as anyone else would be.
  This bill is based upon the same precedent that has been passed 
through this House by voice vote dealing with human smuggling. It is 
time to apply the same standard to alien gang members who are 
perpetrating violence not just on people traveling to the United 
States, as in the case of human smuggling, but on the citizens of 
virtually every State in the Union.
  The murders that have been outlined by Mr. King of New York, Mrs. 
Comstock of Virginia, Mr. Labrador of Idaho, and others are taking 
place all across the country because we simply are not removing from 
this country as expeditiously as possible members of gangs like MS-13. 
It is time to get about doing that, and this bill does that.
  I want to commend Representative Barbara Comstock; Representative 
Peter King; and the chairman of our Immigration and Border Security 
Subcommittee, Representative Raul Labrador, for their work on this 
important bill.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3697.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an analysis entitled: 
``Harboring: Overview of the Law,'' prepared by the Catholic Legal 
Immigration Network, Inc.

          [From the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.]

                     Harboring: Overview of the Law

       The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits 
     individuals from concealing, shielding, or harboring 
     unauthorized individuals who come into and remain in the 
     United States. Under the law it is a criminal offense 
     punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who:
       knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien 
     has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in 
     violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from 
     detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from 
     detection, such alien in any place, including any building or 
     any means of transportation. INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the ``harboring 
     provision'' or ``Section 1324 (a)''].


             The Harboring Prohibition Applies to Everyone

       The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those 
     individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented 
     immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented 
     immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by 
     the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly 
     harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States 
     v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. 
     Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 538 
     U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74 
     (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d 
     1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 
     1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 
     (1978).


                  What Are the Elements of Harboring?

       To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the 
     government must prove the following in most jurisdictions 
     ``(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in 
     violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored, 
     or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the 
     defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien 
     entered or remained in the United States in violation of the 
     law, and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially 
     facilitate the alien remaining in the United States 
     illegally.'' Shum, 496 F.3d at 391-392 (quoting United States 
     v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F 3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert 
     denied, 546 U.S. 1097 (2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the Seventh Circuit has rejected the fourth element asserting 
     that the phrase ``conduct tending substantially to 
     facilitate'' is a judicial addition to the statute that is 
     unnecessary for a conviction because the statute requires no 
     specific degree of assistance. United States v. Xiang Hui Ye, 
     588 F.3d 411, 415-416 (7th Cir. 2009).


                   What Actions Constitute Harboring?

       Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish 
     the ``harboring'' of undocumented individuals, it never 
     defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes 
     ``harboring'' has been left to the courts. As shown below, 
     the federal courts have not settled on one uniform 
     definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have 
     adopted their own definition of ``harboring.''
       Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an 
     immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally and that prevents 
     the authorities from detecting the individual's unlawful 
     presence (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
       Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing 
     shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false 
     documentation, or warnings about impending investigations 
     that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in 
     the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 
     Circuit)
       Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an 
     immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally (U.S. Courts of 
     Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
       Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors, 
     and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
       Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known 
     undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to 
     stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him. 
     (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)
       Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented 
     individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)


               Explanation of Harboring Through Case Law

     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
       In the influential case, United States v. Lopez, the U.S. 
     Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went through the 
     legislative history of the harboring provision and stated 
     that the term harbor ``was intended to encompass conduct 
     tending substantially to facilitate an alien's `remaining in 
     the United States illegally,' provided that the person 
     charged has knowledge of the immigrant's unlawful status.'' 
     521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995 
     (1975).
       In this case, Mr. Lopez owned at least six homes in Nassau 
     County, New York, where he operated safe havens for 
     undocumented individuals. Mr. Lopez knew that the people 
     staying in his homes were undocumented. Each person paid Mr. 
     Lopez $15 per week to live in his houses. In many cases, 
     people received the address for a particular house before 
     they left their home countries, and, upon crossing the border 
     illegally, they proceeded directly to the house. Mr. Lopez 
     also helped these individuals obtain jobs by completing work 
     applications and transporting them to and from work. He 
     arranged sham marriages for many so that they could appear to 
     be in the U.S. in lawful status. With a warrant, immigration 
     authorities searched

[[Page 14498]]

     six of Lopez's homes and found twenty-seven undocumented 
     individuals. He was charged with harboring illegal 
     immigrants.
       Mr. Lopez argued that the mere providing of shelter to 
     undocumented immigrants does not constitute harboring. Id. at 
     439. He argued that to constitute harboring the conduct must 
     be part of the process of smuggling immigrants into the U.S. 
     or facilitating the immigrants' illegal entry into the U.S. 
     Id. The circuit court noted that he essentially argued that 
     to constitute harboring the sheltering would have to be 
     provided either clandestinely or for the purposes of 
     sheltering the immigrants from the authorities. Id.
       The Second Circuit rejected these arguments. It held that 
     the statute criminalizes conduct that tends substantially to 
     facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States 
     illegally. Id. at 441. The circuit court found that Mr. 
     Lopez's conduct did just that. It pointed out that Mr. Lopez 
     had a large number of undocumented immigrants living at his 
     houses; they obtained the addresses and, upon entering the 
     U.S., proceeded to those houses; Mr. Lopez provided 
     transportation for them to and from work; and, he helped 
     arrange sham marriages. Id.  The Second Circuit did not 
     require that Mr. Lopez provide the shelter clandestinely nor 
     that he shield the illegal immigrants from detection by 
     immigration authorities Id.
       The case of United States v. Kim also is instructive on the 
     meaning of harboring. 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cu 1999). It states 
     that harboring within the meaning of Section 1324(a) 
     ``encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an 
     alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent 
     government authorities from detecting [the immigrant's] 
     unlawful presence.'' Id. at 574. In this case, Mr. Myung Ho 
     Kim owned and operated a garment-manufacturing business 
     called ``Sewing Masters'' in New York City. He employed a 
     number of undocumented workers, including Nancy Fanfar. 
     During the course of her employment, Mr. Kim instructed Ms. 
     Fanfar to bring in new papers with a different name that 
     would indicate that she had work authorization. He instructed 
     Ms. Fanfar to change her name and remain in his employ a 
     second time, even while he was being investigated by 
     immigration authorities.
       According to the circuit court, Mr. Kim's actions 
     constituted harboring, for they were designed to help Ms. 
     Fanfar remain in his employ and to prevent her continued 
     presence from being detected by the authorities. Thus, his 
     conduct substantially facilitated her ability to remain in 
     the U.S. illegally in prohibition of the harboring provision. 
     Id. at 574-575.
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
       The Third Circuit also has considered what conduct 
     constitutes ``shielding,'' ``harboring,'' and ``concealing'' 
     within the meaning of Section 1324(a). Like the Second 
     Circuit, it determined that these terms encompass conduct 
     ``tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in 
     the U.S. illegally'' and [that] prevent[s] government 
     authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence. 
     ``U.S. v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008); see also 
     Delno-Mocci v. Connolly Props, 672 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 
     2012), U.S. v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir. 
     2009); U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1003 (3d Cir. 2008).
       In United States v. Ozcelik, the defendant knew that the 
     individual remained in the U.S. illegally and advised him to 
     ``lay low'' and ``stay away'' from the address he had on file 
     with the government. 527 F.3d at 100. However, Mr. Ozcelik 
     did not actively attempt to intervene or delay an impending 
     immigration investigation and the Third Circuit held that 
     advising an individual without legal status to stay out of 
     trouble and to keep a low profile does not tend substantially 
     to facilitate their remaining in the country. Id. at 100-01. 
     The circuit court reasserted that shielding or harboring a 
     person without status ordinarily includes affirmative conduct 
     such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about 
     how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about 
     impending investigations that facilitates a person's 
     continuing illegal presence in the United States. See Id. at 
     99.
       In United States v. Silveus, the Third Circuit held that 
     cohabitation, along with reasonable control of premises 
     during an immigration agent's inquiry regarding the 
     whereabouts of the suspected undocumented individual, does 
     not constitute harboring without sufficient evidence that a 
     defendant's conduct substantially facilitated the 
     individual's remaining in the U.S. illegally and prevented 
     authorities from detecting his/her unlawful presence. 542 
     F.3d at 1002-04. In this case, the agent never saw the 
     suspected undocumented individual, but only heard the 
     apartment door slam, heard some bushes break, and as he 
     approached, saw the defendant shut her front door. Id. at 
     1002. The defendant spoke to the agent through her window and 
     when asked if anybody had run out of her apartment, she said 
     ``I don't know.'' Id. at 1003. The circuit court determined 
     that the act of shutting a door as an agent rounded the 
     corner and her subsequent reply to the agent's question did 
     not establish ``harboring'' under Section 1324(a) because it 
     only led to speculation as to the suspect's presence. Id. at 
     1004.
       In United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, the Third Circuit 
     reaffirmed that shielding an undocumented person includes 
     affirmative conduct (such as providing shelter, 
     transportation, direction about how to obtain false 
     documents, or warnings about impending investigations) that 
     facilitates the person's continuing illegal presence in the 
     U.S. 572 F.3d at 122. The circuit court held that the 
     defendant's actions (taking undocumented people from the U.S. 
     to the Dominican Republic in his private plane) were 
     undertaken for the purpose of removing them from the U.S., 
     not helping them remain in the U.S. Id. It noted that the 
     goal of Section 1324 is to prevent undocumented individuals 
     from entering or remaining illegally in the U.S. by punishing 
     those that shield or harbor. Id. It asserted that punishing a 
     defendant for helping individuals without legal status leave 
     the U.S. would be contrary to that goal. Id.
       More recently, the Third Circuit reiterated that 
     ``harboring'' requires some act that obstructs the 
     government's ability to discover the undocumented person and 
     that it is highly unlikely that landlords renting apartments 
     to people lacking lawful status could, without more, satisfy 
     the court's definition of harboring. Delrio-Mocci, 672 F.3d 
     at 246 (citing Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223 
     (3d Cir 2010)). The circuit court reiterated that ``[r]enting 
     an apartment in the normal course of business is not in and 
     of itself conduct that prevents the government from detecting 
     an alien's presence.'' Id.
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
       The Fifth Circuit's definition of harboring is broader than 
     the Second and Third Circuits. It rejects the notion that to 
     be convicted of harboring a defendant's conduct must be part 
     of a smuggling operation or involve actions that hide 
     immigrants from law enforcement authorities. See De Jesus-
     Batres, 410 F.3d at 162 (specific intent is not an element of 
     the offense of harboring). An early Fifth Circuit decision, 
     U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977), remains 
     informative.
       In Cantu, immigration agents visited the restaurant owned 
     by Mr. Cantu because they received information that he was 
     employing undocumented workers. The agents wanted to question 
     the employees. Mr. Cantu refused admission to his restaurant 
     until they could provide a warrant.
       While the immigration authorities waited outside for the 
     warrant, Mr. Cantu made arrangements with at least two of his 
     patrons to drive some of his undocumented employees into 
     town. Mr. Cantu also arranged for his employees to sit in the 
     restaurant and then leave the restaurant like customers. As 
     the employees left the restaurant, the immigration agents 
     approached them and questioned them about their immigration 
     status. The agents determined their illegal status and 
     arrested them.
       Mr. Cantu argued that, because he did not instruct his 
     employees to ``hide,'' and because the employees left the 
     restaurant in full view of the officers, he could not be 
     charged with shielding immigrants from detection. He also 
     argued that his actions were not connected to any smuggling 
     activity. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Second Circuit's 
     Lopez decision, rejected these arguments, and determined that 
     Mr. Cantu's actions--instructing the employees to act like 
     customers so they could evade arrest--tended to facilitate 
     the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally. Id. at 1180.
       In another Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Varkonyi, 
     645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981), the court cited to Lopez to 
     assert that the harboring statute prohibits ``any conduct 
     which tends to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining 
     in the U.S. illegally.'' Id. at 459. Mr. Varkonyi provided a 
     group of undocumented immigrants with steady employment at 
     his scrap metal yard six days a week as well as lodging at 
     his warehouse. On previous occasions, he had instructed and 
     aided the men in avoiding detection and apprehension. On the 
     day of their detention, Mr. Varkonyi interfered with Customs 
     and Border Protection agents' actions by forcibly denying 
     them entry to his property through physical force.
       Here, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct 
     went well beyond mere employment and thus constituted 
     harboring. Id. at 459. In this case, the court pointed out 
     that Mr. Varkonyi knew of the immigrants' undocumented 
     status, he had instructed the immigrants on avoiding 
     detection on a prior occasion; he was providing the 
     immigrants with employment and lodging, he interfered with 
     immigration agents to protect the immigrants from 
     apprehension; and he was partly responsible for the escape of 
     one of the immigrants from custody. Id. Given these facts, 
     the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct, both 
     before and after the detention of the immigrants, was 
     calculated to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. 
     unlawfully. Id. at 460.
       In 2007, the Fifth Circuit ruled in another employment 
     harboring case that ``substantially facilitate'' means to 
     make an individual's illegal presence in the United States 
     substantially ``easier or less difficult.'' United States v. 
     Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and 
     quotation marks omitted). The court noted that Section 
     1324(a) was enacted to deter employers from hiring 
     unauthorized individuals and it refused to adopt a narrow 
     definition of ``substantially facilitate'' that undermines 
     Congress's purpose. Id.

[[Page 14499]]

       In this case, Mr. Shum was vice-president of an office-
     cleaning company and he employed janitors without legal 
     status. According to witnesses, he provided false 
     identifications to the workers to facilitate background 
     checks so that the workers could clean government office 
     buildings.

  Ms. LOFGREN. In this legal analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration 
Network, Inc., it does point out that religious persons have been 
prosecuted and convicted for providing sanctuary. Opinions may differ 
on whether that is a good idea or bad idea, but to say that that is an 
MS-13 activity, I think we would all agree that is just crazy. That is 
what this bill would do.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Demings), a freshman Member of the House whom we are so fortunate 
to have. Just last year, as the chief of police, she was on the front 
line in the fight against gangs.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, I spent 27 years as a law enforcement 
officer. I had the honor of working my way up through the ranks to 
become the chief of police. I co-chaired an antigang task force for the 
State of Florida. As chief, I launched an all-out war against violent 
crime. Through the hard work of a lot of good men and women, we were 
able to reduce violent crime by 40 percent.
  Do I take gang activity very seriously? You better believe I do. I 
have the record to prove that.
  The spirit of H.R. 3697, with this broad, new definition of what 
constitutes a gang, has nothing, based on my experience on the ground, 
to do with curtailing gang activity.
  As a former law enforcement officer who has been there on the front 
lines, there is no way I would vote for this law. This law targets a 
group of people based on their status and does not target criminal 
activity. That is what law enforcement officers do.
  We all take gang activity seriously. I heard the question earlier: 
Who would favor gangs? Who really would favor gangs?
  I invite my colleagues on the other side to join me in continuing our 
aggressive efforts to target criminal behavior, because that is really 
what we want to stop--criminal behavior--and not profile or target 
people. That is just not who we are.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of closing comments on 
this bill.
  I think it is a given that every Member of this body wants to do 
something about gangs. I have gangs in my district. I think I heard Mr. 
King speak so passionately about the problem in his district. It is a 
pervasive problem.
  The concern is that this bill goes far beyond targeting those gangs. 
That is why we, with great reluctance, have to say we can't do this. We 
can't do this.
  If we wanted to target just the gangs, we wouldn't have included 
language that would allow charging people who are not gang members as 
gang members. We wouldn't have included provisions that the victims of 
gangs would be denied asylum. Section 2(f) of the bill denies 
individuals who are suspected of alleged gang membership the 
opportunity to apply for asylum.
  Here is the problem. In certain parts of Central America, you have 
rampant gang activity. Women and girls are terribly abused. They are 
beaten, turned into sex slaves, tattooed, and they escape. If that 
young girl who has been the victim of that violence from gangs comes 
with the tattoos, the brand that that gang put on her, and if she, as a 
consequence, is reasonably suspected of being a member of the gang, she 
can't get asylum. That is not what we want in the fight against MS-13.
  The bill is not drafted adequately.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington).
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, in 2014, four MS-13 gang members 
brutally murdered a 14-year-old boy from Texas with a machete. Just 
this year, two MS-13 gang members laughed and waved at the cameras as 
they faced trial in a Houston courtroom for the kidnapping, rape, and 
murder of young girls. These are just two examples that reflect the 
horrific and gruesome reality of what gangs across this country are 
capable of.
  There are as many as 100,000 gang members in my home State of Texas, 
several of whom are linked to Mexican cartels, who help them distribute 
drugs and traffic people and weapons. Nearly 60 percent of identified 
prison gang members in Texas are serving sentences for violent crimes, 
including homicide, robbery, and assault.
  MS-13 is one of the most dangerous gangs in our State, with almost 
500 members throughout Texas. They have been described by the Houston 
police chief as a ``transnational terrorist organization,'' the ``worst 
of the worst,'' and a ``cancer.'' It is State and local law enforcement 
officers like him, as well gang task forces, who are on the front 
lines, putting their own lives in danger to deal with these heinous 
criminals.
  Today, I rise in support of Mrs. Comstock's bill, which will do what 
we should have been doing a long time ago, and that is giving local 
entities the ability to expeditiously deport gang members who are here 
illegally and ensure they never are able to come back to the United 
States.
  Our first job is to keep Americans safe. H.R. 3697 certainly improves 
the prospects of that.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Mimi Walters of California). The 
gentlewoman from California has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Idaho has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It has been mentioned that there are terrible activities being 
undertaken by gang members. I don't think there is any dispute in this 
body about that. Our obligation is to craft bills that will allow for 
remedies for that problem in a specific, targeted, and effective way. I 
think this bill falls far short in that regard.
  We had mentioned earlier the great concern that has been expressed to 
us by religious people across the United States about the provisions 
relative to harboring. Five nuns on a religious worker visa who help 
provide sanctuary for an undocumented person is a gang under this bill. 
They are not MS-13.
  We could craft a measure that avoids that outcome while still going 
after MS-13. We didn't do that. For one thing, we didn't actually sit 
down, both sides of the aisle, to work together, to reason together, to 
make that happen.
  I would like to note that the smuggling issue is a big problem. We 
have unanimous agreement on the smuggling issue. We have worked 
together, actually, with the Wilberforce Act and other acts in a 
bipartisan way to deal with that. But we didn't bifurcate smuggling 
from harboring in this bill. That is why the nuns and the Catholic 
bishops have contacted us asking us not to support this bill.
  I would like to note, just finally, that the first obligation that we 
have is to keep America safe. We fail to do that if we craft language 
that really is just part of a broad deportation agenda under the guise 
of an antigang bill. There is great concern that is what has happened 
here.
  One of the elements that is referenced as a predicate for gang 
activity--the five people who are working together--is that documents 
are false. A lot of people are highly agitated when undocumented people 
have false documents. Opinions differ. Almost every undocumented person 
in the United States who works has a fake ID; otherwise, they can't get 
a job.
  You can agree with that, you can think it is terrible, you can think 
it is maybe not so terrible. I think most of us would agree it is not 
MS-13. Why would we craft this in such a way to treat that activity as 
an MS-13 activity and to blow up all the procedures we have in place to 
make sure that justice is done?
  I hope that Members will vote against this bill. Despite the name, it

[[Page 14500]]

goes far beyond attacking gangs. It would drift into allowing for the 
deportation of religious people and others who have done nothing 
related to gang activity.
  I hope that, if this bill is defeated, we can sit down, as we often 
have on various items and worked collaboratively on patent reform and 
other issues, and do the same on this. I hope, if this bill is 
defeated, we will take the opportunity to do that.
  I, for one, pledge my best efforts to come up with a measure that is 
targeted and effective. This bill, unfortunately, is not.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LABRADOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I keep hearing again and again and again that there is 
no dispute about ongoing violence or gang violence in the United 
States, but what has been clear from today's argument is that our 
friends on the other side just don't want to do anything about it. They 
are willing to talk about the gang violence, but they don't want to 
actually craft and pass legislation that does something about it.

                              {time}  1015

  I hope it is something that the American people are listening to, 
because as we have debates over the next few months about what we 
should be doing with regard to immigration, I hope everyone understands 
that every time we try to do something about enforcement of immigration 
laws, about stopping gang violation, about stopping illegal immigration 
into the United States, it is very difficult to get agreement on the 
other side.
  Criminal alien gang members are wreaking havoc in this country. 
Without stronger tools to specifically target those aliens that 
terrorize our streets, gangs will continue to grow in numbers and in 
strength.
  The time has come to take action and to provide a path to deportation 
to those that so unabashedly seek to destroy our society.
  ICE has found that ``membership of these violent transnational gangs 
is comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.'' Often bearing the 
brunt of these gangs' violence are these very immigrant communities 
that the other side claims that they want to protect.
  The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act takes a tough approach. I 
agree with that. Those gang members who have successfully evaded 
prosecution through witness intimidation, employing the tactics of fear 
and violence, will now be within ICE's reach. The new grounds of 
removability provided by H.R. 3697 will get criminal gang members off 
of our streets.
  ICE's recent Operation New Dawn resulted in almost 1,100 arrests of 
gang members. Had H.R. 3697 been enacted prior, that number would have 
almost certainly increased.
  This bill is only starting the removal process, however. Make no 
mistake--and there was a lot of obfuscation today about this--
immigration proceedings do not equate to deportation. The government 
must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an immigration 
judge that gang-related activity occurred.
  As a former private immigration attorney, I have seen this process in 
action, and it does work. ICE will not use this new charge as pretext, 
as this ground will never be sustained by an immigration judge without 
sufficient evidence.
  The time for this bill is long overdue, and we cannot afford to be 
distracted by extreme hypotheticals and issues not germane to what we 
are discussing today.
  This bill was introduced to target criminal gangs, as that term is 
commonly understood, and that is what it will do once enacted. There is 
no place in our country for criminal alien gang members. By removing 
them from our streets, H.R. 3697 will help make our communities safer. 
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3697 is yet another exercise in 
false advertising by the Majority. Named the ``Criminal Alien Gang 
Member Removal Act,'' this legislation is so overbroad that it would 
lead to the deportation of immigrants with absolutely no criminal 
record and would apply to individuals with no connection to gangs.
  In short, this blatantly anti-immigration legislation casts a wide 
and dangerous net in furtherance of President Trump's mass deportation 
agenda. I say this for several reasons.
  To begin with, H.R. 3967 authorizes the Trump Administration to brand 
a group of immigrants a ``gang'' without requiring a conviction or even 
an arrest.
  In fact, it would allow individuals to be deported or denied 
admission based on a mere ``belief''--however tenuous--of their 
connection to unlawful activity.
  In addition, the bill's definition of a ``gang'' is so broad that it 
would apply to individuals who clearly are not members of criminal 
gangs.
  I doubt that my Republican colleagues really believe that 5 Christian 
ministers providing shelter to undocumented immigrants constitute a 
criminal gang.
  But by voting for this measure, that's precisely what lawmakers would 
turn them into. The bill instantly places such religious workers 
throughout America--from nuns to rabbis, imams to priests--into the 
same classification as MS-13.
  Finally, we are rushing this deeply flawed legislation through the 
House today while nearly 800,000 young people--800,000 law abiding 
members of our communities--are facing deportation in as little as 6 
months.
  These are young people who are as American as any of us. They have 
grown up in our communities, attended our schools, and have become our 
neighbors, our teachers, first responders, doctors, and lawyers. But 
because of action taken by President Trump last week, they now are 
living in fear and uncertainty.
  There is a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support across the 
country that would allow these young people to remain in the United 
States the only home most have ever known--and continue contributing to 
our communities and our economy.
  But that bill, the DREAM Act, has languished for years.
  Nevertheless, instead of taking up the DREAM Act, we are rushing H.R. 
3697 through just days after it was introduced and without any 
hearings, markups, or the opportunity for amendment.
  This House should stop jamming through pieces of the Trump mass 
deportation plan and instead recommit itself to lifting up the young 
people of our communities by passing the DREAM act.
  It is what's right for our economy, our Nation and it is our moral 
responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3697.
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Criminal 
Alien Gang Member Removal Act.
  Remarkably, under current law, membership in a criminal street gang 
does not in and of itself make a non-citizen inadmissible or deportable 
from the United States.
  This common-sense bill corrects this dangerous loophole by requiring 
that criminal alien gang members be deported swiftly and never allowed 
back into the United States.
  It provides law enforcement with another tool in their arsenal to 
combat dangerous and deadly criminal gangs--like MS-13. Criminal gangs 
benefit from loopholes in our immigration laws and today we are taking 
an important step to close the door to the United States for non-
citizen criminal gang members.
  Over the past 12 months, several thousand criminal aliens who were 
confirmed members of gangs were removed from the United States by 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This year ICE is continuing 
its focus on making our streets safer by removing criminal gang members 
with a particular focus on MS-13 members.
  It is past time that we strengthen our immigration laws, deport 
criminal aliens and secure our borders. We have a duty to make America 
safe for its citizens and H.R. 3697 is an important step in that 
direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 513, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page 14501]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Beyer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3697 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTING INNOCENT RELIGIOUS WORKERS FROM 
                   DEPORTATION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act may 
     be construed to authorize the deportation of an alien for 
     action taken on behalf of a religious organization whose 
     primary purpose is the provision of humanitarian assistance 
     or aid.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  I offer this amendment to recommit to reveal the flaws in the bill. 
The sponsor of this bill, Mrs. Comstock and I both represent northern 
Virginia, and she and I both want to eliminate gang violence. MS-13 is 
a menace to society, and I endorse the goal of destroying it through 
legal means, but this bill wouldn't do that.
  This bill will promote widespread racial profiling. It will violate 
First Amendment protections. It will expand mandatory detention of 
immigrants. It will raise serious constitutional questions on judicial 
review of government designation of certain groups. And it bars 
humanitarian relief for individuals in violation of international 
treaties.
  I take gang violence and MS-13 very seriously. The young man Mrs. 
Comstock referred to, found dead in a park in my city of Alexandria, 
was actually found by a dear family friend. But we can do this in a 
bill that doesn't promote racial profiling or violate the Constitution.
  So in this motion to recommit, we offer language to get at one of the 
most glaring flaws in this bill that it can go after humanitarian 
workers. The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act creates an overly 
broad definition of a criminal gang by allowing DHS to essentially 
designate any individual as a gang member.
  As written, it could cover a wide range of organizations ranging from 
churches to fraternities, to political groups. This will allow ICE to 
target people who may or may not appear to be in a gang and charge all 
those who seem in any way connected to individual members of a gang.
  Religious workers who are engaged in immigrant ministry could be 
subject to prosecution. Immigrant ministry is not smuggling in airless 
trucks. In my district, we have a number of faith communities who 
provide for the unemployed, the homeless, those without language. 
Already, ICE swept up half a dozen men as they exited a church service. 
Under this bill, the pastor could be next.
  If a nun, through her work, interacts with a potential gang member, 
she, by the context of this bill, could be a gang member. It is not 
accidental that the Catholic bishops and the nuns have written to 
oppose this bill. The harboring provisions are so sweeping, the 
religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or support to 
undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. And 
this is not transportation across the U.S. border. This is 
transportation to work or to English lesson classes.
  It is incredibly concerning that it would subject people who have 
never committed a crime, never been arrested, never been indicted, to 
deportation; and it would apply retroactively. Indeed, mere suspicion 
of involvement in harboring could classify individuals as gang members.
  So it is very obvious here that humanitarian exemption is needed, but 
that is not the only concern with this bill language. The overly broad 
definition would empower immigrant authorities to conduct dragnet 
sweeps of Latino communities and other communities of color.
  Media reports make it clear that law enforcement has recently relied 
on questionable and unreliable evidence to assert that Latino 
individuals are gang members, including wearing certain kinds of 
clothes or doodling in an area code from a Latin American country on a 
school notebook.
  Officers have alleged gang membership sometimes based on merely being 
seen with people who are alleged gang members or living in 
neighborhoods known to suffer gang activity. This expansive language 
could and will sweep up people who have committed no criminal activity 
whatsoever.
  As a representative of Virginia, a State with a long and troubled 
history with race, I think we need to be very careful before we 
implement policies that allow for structural racism. This bill has many 
more flaws, which general debate covered. But I want to be clear, 
before we pass this bill and start locking up nuns and priests and 
other religious workers, we should not continue this one-dimensional 
conversation on immigration policy.
  We cannot focus only on enforcement and a mass deportation agenda. It 
doesn't fix our immigration system. We have got to work on 
comprehensive immigration reform, and we begin with the President's 
recent decision to eliminate DACA and put Congress on the clock. We 
should be acting today to protect our DREAMers. 800,000 young 
immigrants'--not members of MS-13--lives depend on it. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Madam Speaker, in 2015, at an Alexandria playground in 
Mr. Beyer's district, 8 miles from this Capitol, the body of a 24-year-
old man was left nearly decapitated in a grisly murder by one of the 
thousands of MS-13 gang members in our country. I should also mention 
that that victim was also an MS-13 gang member.
  This very Capital region has the second highest number of MS-13 gang 
members. Criminal alien gang members are growing in numbers in our 
region around the country and wrecking havoc in my district and in this 
very region. Without stronger tools to specifically target those 
specific aliens--this bill targets them--that terrorize our streets, 
gangs like MS-13 will then continue to grow in numbers and strength if 
we aren't targeting them. The time has come to take action and provide 
a path for deportation for violent criminal gang members.
  ICE has found that membership of these violent transnational gangs is 
comprised largely of foreign-born nationals. Often bearing the brunt of 
these gangs' violence are the very immigrant communities in which they 
reside. They target their own communities. We have seen that in my 
region and in my district, and that is why this is so troubling.
  The Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act will address this. Those 
gang members who have successfully evaded prosecution through witness 
intimidation, employing the tactics of fear and violence will now be 
within ICE's reach. The new grounds of removability provided by H.R. 
3697 will help get criminal gang members off our streets.
  ICE's recent Operation New Dawn has resulted in almost 1,100 arrests 
of gang members. Had this bill been enacted prior, that number could 
have increased. This bill is only starting the removal process, 
however.
  Make no mistake, regular immigration proceedings will still apply. 
The government must prove its case and provide evidence to convince an 
immigration judge. This bill preserves all due process and appellate 
rights afforded to any alien facing deportation.
  The time for this bill is long overdue. It was introduced to target 
criminal gangs, as that term is commonly understood, and that is what 
it will do once it is enacted.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote 
for the base bill, H.R. 3697, and to provide ICE with the tools it 
needs to keep dangerous criminal alien gang members off our streets, 
out of our communities, and out of our country.

[[Page 14502]]

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 220, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 516]

                               YEAS--184

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

                               NAYS--220

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

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bridenstine
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Costa
     Crist
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Frankel (FL)
     Garrett
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Olson
     Posey
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Sinema
     Tiberi
     Yoho

                              {time}  1050

  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, LEWIS of Minnesota, and COLLINS of New York 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. PINGREE, Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mses. McCOLLUM and 
SEWELL of Alabama, Messrs. KENNEDY, HOYER, GUTIERREZ, HIGGINS of New 
York, and McNERNEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
and I have never seen this bill before. Under regular order, it should 
go to our committee for a hearing and for a markup. Has this bill had a 
hearing and a markup in any committee, or has it just sprung on this 
floor like something out of the ocean in Greek mythology?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is counting for the yeas and nays. 
The gentleman's inquiry will not be entertained.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 175, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 517]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)

[[Page 14503]]


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

                               NAYS--175

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bridenstine
     Carter (GA)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Costa
     Crist
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Frankel (FL)
     Garrett
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawson (FL)
     Loudermilk
     Pelosi
     Posey
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Tiberi
     Yoho

                              {time}  1059

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

                          ____________________