[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10166-10187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               KATE'S LAW

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 415, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3004) to amend section 276 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act relating to reentry of removed aliens, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3004

       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 ``Kate's Law''.

     SEC. 2. ILLEGAL REENTRY.

       Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1326) is amended to read as follows:


                       ``reentry of removed alien

       ``Sec. 276.  (a) Reentry After Removal.--Any alien who has 
     been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed, or who 
     has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, 
     deportation, or removal is outstanding, and subsequently 
     enters, attempts to enter, crosses the border to, attempts to 
     cross the border to, or is at any time found in the United 
     States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, 
     imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
       ``(b) Reentry of Criminal Offenders.--Notwithstanding the 
     penalty provided in subsection (a), if an alien described in 
     that subsection was convicted before such removal or 
     departure--
       ``(1) for 3 or more misdemeanors or for a felony, the alien 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned 
     not more than 10 years, or both;
       ``(2) for a felony for which the alien was sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of not less than 30 months, the alien 
     shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 15 
     years, or both;
       ``(3) for a felony for which the alien was sentenced to a 
     term of imprisonment of not less than 60 months, the alien 
     shall be fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 
     years, or both; or
       ``(4) for murder, rape, kidnapping, or a felony offense 
     described in chapter 77 (relating to peonage and slavery) or 
     113B (relating to terrorism) of such title, or for 3 or more 
     felonies of any kind, the alien shall be fined under such 
     title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both.
       ``(c) Reentry After Repeated Removal.--Any alien who has 
     been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed 3 or 
     more times and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, crosses 
     the border to, attempts to cross the border to, or is at any 
     time found in the United States, shall be fined under title 
     18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both.
       ``(d) Proof of Prior Convictions.--The prior convictions 
     described in subsection (b) are elements of the crimes 
     described, and the penalties in that subsection shall apply 
     only in cases in which the conviction or convictions that 
     form the basis for the additional penalty are--
       ``(1) alleged in the indictment or information; and
       ``(2) proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or admitted 
     by the defendant.
       ``(e) Affirmative Defenses.--It shall be an affirmative 
     defense to a violation of this section that--
       ``(1) prior to the alleged violation, the alien had sought 
     and received the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to reapply for admission into the United States; or
       ``(2) with respect to an alien previously denied admission 
     and removed, the alien--
       ``(A) was not required to obtain such advance consent under 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act or any prior Act; and
       ``(B) had complied with all other laws and regulations 
     governing the alien's admission into the United States.
       ``(f) Limitation on Collateral Attack on Underlying Removal 
     Order.--In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien 
     may not challenge the validity of any prior removal order 
     concerning the alien.
       ``(g) Reentry of Alien Removed Prior to Completion of Term 
     of Imprisonment.--Any alien removed pursuant to section 
     241(a)(4) who enters, attempts to enter, crosses the border 
     to, attempts to cross the border to, or is at any time found 
     in, the United States shall be incarcerated for the remainder 
     of the sentence of imprisonment which was pending at the time 
     of deportation without any reduction for parole or supervised 
     release unless the alien affirmatively demonstrates that the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security has expressly consented to the 
     alien's reentry. Such alien shall be subject to

[[Page 10167]]

     such other penalties relating to the reentry of removed 
     aliens as may be available under this section or any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section and 
     section 275, the following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Crosses the border to the united states.--The term 
     `crosses the border' refers to the physical act of crossing 
     the border, regardless of whether the alien is free from 
     official restraint.
       ``(2) Felony.--The term `felony' means any criminal offense 
     punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year 
     under the laws of the United States, any State, or a foreign 
     government.
       ``(3) Misdemeanor.--The term `misdemeanor' means any 
     criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of not 
     more than 1 year under the applicable laws of the United 
     States, any State, or a foreign government.
       ``(4) Removal.--The term `removal' includes any denial of 
     admission, exclusion, deportation, or removal, or any 
     agreement by which an alien stipulates or agrees to 
     exclusion, deportation, or removal.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3004.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long, illegal reentry of criminal aliens has 
been viewed as a minor felony with only a fraction of those repeat 
offenders ever seeing the inside of a Federal courtroom. Section 276 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act provides Federal prosecutors with 
the tools necessary to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering the 
United States.
  Unfortunately, the section simply does not go far enough to act as a 
deterrent. Criminal aliens view the risk as worth the reward, as most 
charged under this section of law are given minuscule sentences that 
belie the severity of the crime.
  Aliens who reenter the United States after being removed, demonstrate 
a flagrant disregard for our immigration laws and pose a tremendous 
threat to public safety and national security in every community 
nationwide.
  This Congress has heard from countless victims and family members of 
victims whose lives were forever changed or completely destroyed by 
criminal aliens preying on our citizens.
  This bill is named in memory and in honor of Kate Steinle. On July 1, 
2015, Ms. Steinle was enjoying an evening at a popular attraction in 
San Francisco with her father. As three shots were fired, Ms. Steinle 
collapsed screaming. Her father, Jim, performed CPR until paramedics 
arrived, but she ultimately succumbed to the severe damage caused by 
the bullet and she died hours later.
  Her murderer was arrested an hour later and identified as a middle-
aged criminal alien who had been removed from the United States and had 
returned at least five times. The gun used had been stolen from a 
Federal officer with the Bureau of Land Management.
  Mr. Speaker, these horrific events must be better deterred and 
prevented. No legislation can prevent every tragic situation, but this 
Congress has a duty to take every action possible to mitigate this harm 
and danger.
  It is in this vein that I am proud to bring Kate's Law to the House 
floor today. This bill seeks to amend and greatly improve section 276 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act by enhancing the maximum 
sentences for criminal aliens who seek to reenter the United States.
  While an alien reentering this country is subject to a sentence of up 
to 2 years, current law only subjects certain criminals to enhance 
penalties. Specifically, only criminal aliens previously convicted of 
an aggravated felony, as defined in our immigration laws, controlled 
substance violations, crimes against other persons, or certain felonies 
would trigger an enhanced sentence of either 10 or 20 years.
  Kate's Law closes the loophole into which so many criminal aliens 
fall. The bill provides that a criminal alien, previously convicted of 
any three misdemeanors or any felony, would, upon conviction for 
illegal reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years.
  Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced 
to at least 30 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be 
subject to a maximum sentence of 15 years.
  Aliens previously convicted of a crime for which they were sentenced 
to at least 60 months, would, upon conviction for illegal reentry, be 
subject to a maximum sentence of 20 years.
  Aliens previously convicted for murder, rape, kidnapping, a peonage 
offense, or any three felonies, would, under conviction for illegal 
reentry, be subject to a maximum sentence of 25 years.
  These are significant enhancements to our immigration laws and are 
long overdue. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention a 
caveat added to the bill. If enacted, Kate's Law adds affirmative 
defenses for aliens charged under this section. If an alien can prove 
that they had the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to reapply for admission, or that an alien previously denied admission 
and removed was not required to obtain such consent, then the alien may 
present that as an affirmative defense to the illegal reentry crime.
  This safeguard will ensure that only aliens who illegally reenter the 
United States may be convicted and sentenced to enhanced penalties 
under this section.
  This is missing from the current statute, and I am sure my colleagues 
on both side of the aisle would agree that due process protections such 
as these add to the efficacy of such a measure.
  Nothing that this Congress can pass will ever bring Kate Steinle 
back, nor take away the pain suffered by her family, and countless 
other victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens. Kate's Law, 
however, will offer a deterrent against future criminal aliens who seek 
to illegally reenter the United States. Knowing they may face up to 2 
years in Federal prison is one thing, but the possibility of a sentence 
of 10, 15, 20, or 25 years will have the desired effect.
  I agree with many of my colleagues on both side of the aisle that we 
must take many other steps to address our immigration system. This 
Congress must pass strong measures to ensure that immigration 
enforcement in the interior of the United States remains a priority. 
Kate's Law is an essential component of that larger effort to bring 
about true enforcement of our immigration laws, and protect this Nation 
from criminal aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3004 is an anti-immigrant enforcement-only proposal 
that represents yet another step in President Trump's mass deportation 
plan.
  This legislation significantly expands the Federal Government's 
ability to prosecute individuals for illegal entry and attempted 
reentry into the United States.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this bill is about 
protecting us from criminals. But don't be fooled about the ultimate 
effect of this bill. It does far more than target immigrants with 
criminal histories.
  For the first time, this legislation would make it a felony for an 
individual who has been previously removed or merely denied admission 
to come to an official port of entry to ask for reentry into the 
country legally. This is true even if the individual has no criminal 
history whatsoever.
  For instance, the expanded offense would apply to persecuted asylum 
seekers voluntarily presenting themselves at a port of entry to request 
asylum under our own immigration laws.

[[Page 10168]]

  It would reach desperate victims of sex trafficking who approach the 
Customs and Border Protection officer to seek protection.
  It would even extend to persons asking to enter on humanitarian 
parole to donate lifesaving organs to United States citizen relatives.
  Under H.R. 3004, all of these individuals could face up to 2 years in 
prison simply for coming to an official port of entry to request 
immigration benefits provided under our immigration laws.
  Finally, this bill perpetuates the fiction that immigrants are 
somehow inherently criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Numerous studies examining this issue conclude that immigrants actually 
commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than native-born Americans.
  Given this legislation's defects, it comes to us as no surprise that 
organizations across the Nation join with me in opposition. They 
include:
  The conservative Cato Institute, which called H.R. 3004, ``a waste of 
Federal resources'' that fails to safeguard ``Americans against serious 
criminals.''
  Cities For Action, representing over 150 mayors and municipal 
leaders, warned the bill would place asylum seekers at further risk.
  And the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, 
which described how this measure, H.R. 3004, will punish victims of 
domestic and sexual violence merely for requesting protection.
  H.R. 3004 is not what its sponsors would like us to believe. In 
truth, it is a mean-spirited bill that would have far-reaching 
consequences by making it a crime to ask for benefits that our 
immigration laws provide.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and 
for working this legislation through and facilitating that it comes to 
the floor this week.
  This week, the event of ``Hold Their Feet to the Fire'' is being held 
where many of the families of those who have been killed by illegal 
aliens are here to contribute. They went to the White House, and the 
message has been sent across the country. They have gone and done radio 
shows, and they have been part of this for a long time.
  I think of how far back this goes, Kate Steinle's law. From my 
perspective, she was murdered on the streets of San Francisco on July 
1, 2015. It hit the news, I think, the next day. I sent out a tweet on 
July 3 that said it was a 100 percent preventable crime. Just enforce 
the law. This story will make you cry, too. And it happens every day.
  What we are trying to accomplish with Kate's Law is sentencing that 
is enhanced for those who overstay or those who have been deported from 
the United States and come back into the United States.
  I want to compliment former Congressman Matt Salmon from Arizona, 
who, after her death on July 1, introduced legislation only 8 days 
later, which was the foundation for what we are talking about here with 
this bill. That was H.R. 3011, introduced on July 9, 2015.

                              {time}  1545

  Matt is retired. I picked up that legislation in the first days of 
this year, and we have cooperated in this Judiciary Committee to get 
this here to this time.
  But, also, Bill O'Reilly, who made this a national issue, it hit my 
heart as soon as I saw the story. It hit the hearts of America when it 
went out over television, and it is too bad that we can't look at data 
and come here and fix a massive problem that we have.
  It is too bad it has to be focused on individuals and personalities, 
when there are many other families out there that have suffered equally 
with that of the Steinle family and the other families we have talked 
about here today.
  Nonetheless, if that is what it takes to get America to move, we are 
here now. We are here this week. We have the right legislation in front 
of us. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), our senior Representative on the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. The bill 
is part of a larger mass deportation bill marked up by the House 
Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I think the message it is 
intended to convey is that this bill is needed to keep us safe.
  We have heard the sad story of the murder of Kate Steinle, which was 
not news to any of us in northern California. That was a horrible 
murder, and the fact is, this bill would not have prevented that 
murder. The offender had been deported multiple times. He had served 16 
years in Federal prison, so the idea that the 10-year enhancement would 
have somehow fixed this is just misplaced.
  When we talk about the bill, it is as if we don't have harsh 
penalties now for misbehavior in the law. If you take a look at the 
enhancements, it expands criminal sentences for individuals who reenter 
the country after removal. We already have very strong penalties 
against that.
  To say that this bill will keep us safe because, for example, we have 
a 20-year--under current law, a 20-year sentence for a conviction for 
an aggravated felony, this would raise it to 25; I don't think that is 
going to fix this problem. If it were only that, we could have a 
discussion which, unfortunately, we never did on a bipartisan basis.
  The bill does other things that are very damaging. It actually makes 
it a felony, punishable by up to 2 years, to attempt to reenter the 
country legally, in full compliance with our immigration laws; and this 
is true for individuals who have no criminal background whatsoever.
  Now, the sponsors of the bill may argue that is necessary, but I have 
seen no rationale for why that would make any sense, nor why it would 
certainly not have prevented the tragic murder of Kate Steinle.
  Now, let's give some examples of who that could apply to. You have 
individuals who have lived here, we have met them, DREAMers, people who 
have been here all their lives, brought over as children, who were 
removed. If that person who has been removed becomes a victim of sex 
trafficking, the process is this: They can come and seek asylum. They 
can flee from their traffickers. And if they present themselves to our 
port of entry today, they are not trying to evade detection. No, they 
are trying to be found. They are turning themselves in, saying: I am 
fleeing from the sex traffickers; I want to make a claim for asylum; I 
need to be kept safe from the sex traffickers. This bill would make 
that act a felony.
  Now, the chairman has said how wonderful it is that we have created 
an affirmative defense in the act. What he has neglected to mention is 
that right now we don't need an affirmative defense because it is not a 
crime to go to the port of entry and seek a benefit, either 
humanitarian parole for a purpose that is sometimes granted to travel 
if a member of your family is dying, to provide an organ donation to a 
member, an American citizen, who is in the U.S. who is dying. That is 
not a crime today, and you don't need an affirmative defense because it 
is not a crime.
  Now, I think the fact that it eliminates an important constitutional 
provision is problematic. We all know we can't change the Constitution 
by statute. The case of U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez basically says this: If 
you are going to prosecute somebody for entry after removal, which 
happens all the time--in fact, that is the single most prevalent 
Federal prosecution in the system today; that is number one--you have 
to--and you did not have an opportunity to actually contest the first 
removal because, for example, you were never notified at a hearing----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Since that is an element of the offense, the Mendoza 
case

[[Page 10169]]

says you have to be able to at least collaterally attack that because 
you never had a chance to do so initially. This eliminates that 
constitutional case. You can't do that by statute.
  So the point I am making is that the majority of those who enter the 
United States without inspection are coming back to try and get next to 
their families, their U.S. citizen kids, their U.S. citizen spouses. 
They are not criminals. They are not creating any kind of crime.
  We all oppose crime, but this remedy is unrelated to the horror 
stories that we have heard.
  You know, we are creating law here, not bumper stickers. I hope that 
we will vote against this misplaced law and work together to solve the 
real problems that we face.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of 
the Small Business Committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I especially want 
to thank him for his leadership on this.
  Nearly 2 years ago, Kate Steinle, a young woman with a promising 
future, had her life tragically taken away from her when she was 
brutally murdered by an undocumented criminal who had been convicted of 
a series of felonies and had been deported five times; five times, and 
then he kept coming back, and then he finally killed this innocent 
young woman, Kate Steinle.
  Sadly, this tragic event barely registered with the previous 
administration and other supporters of dangerous sanctuary city 
policies. During a July 2015 hearing, shortly after Kate's murder, I 
asked President Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson whether 
the White House had reached out to the Steinle family.
  I will never forget what the Secretary said to me. He responded: Who? 
He had no idea who Kate Steinle or her family were. I had to explain to 
him what had happened to Kate Steinle. It was embarrassing.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have 
heard countless stories from families who, like the Steinles, have 
fallen victim to heinous crimes because of the failure to enforce our 
Nation's immigration laws. We can and must do better to protect all the 
Kate Steinles all across America from being victimized by undocumented 
criminals who should never have been here in the first place.
  I really can't emphasize enough how important this issue is, and H.R. 
3004 will help address this problem finally and enhance public safety 
by toughening the penalties for criminal aliens who have been deported 
from our country, but then keep returning to the United States, and, 
again, far too many of them who commit crimes against innocent 
Americans like Kate Steinle.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This 
draconian legislation would dramatically expand the penalties for 
illegal reentry into the United States, even for people who have 
committed minor and nonviolent offenses.
  Although most people who illegally reenter the country do so to 
reunite with their families or to flee violence or persecution, this 
bill considers them all dangerous criminals who deserve lengthy prison 
sentences.
  This bill is nothing less than fearmongering, based on the widely 
debunked myth that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than 
native-born Americans when, in fact, we know it is just the opposite.
  Let me tell you about one of these supposed dangerous criminals who 
was mercifully released from ICE custody just yesterday, after 4 months 
in detention.
  In 1986, 17-year-old Carlos Cardona illegally entered the United 
States, having fled threats of violence in his native Colombia. At age 
21, he made a foolish mistake and committed a nonviolent drug offense. 
He served 45 days in prison, and, ever since then, for the last 27 
years, he has lived a crime-free and a productive life as an active 
member of his community in Queens, New York.
  Not only that, after the September 11 attacks on this country, he 
volunteered as a recovery worker at Ground Zero. Like so many other 
workers there, due to his sacrifice, he developed acute respiratory 
issues from the toxic fumes and other illnesses that have put his life 
in jeopardy.
  Unfortunately, although he is married to an American citizen, he was 
unable to adjust his immigration status because of his decades-old 
conviction. However, he was allowed to stay in the country in 
recognition of his services after 9/11, as long as he checked in 
periodically with immigration authorities, which he did.
  But shortly after President Trump took office, Mr. Cardona was 
detained after appearing for a routine appointment with ICE, and he was 
placed in deportation proceedings and in custody. It was only thanks to 
a major public campaign and the compassion of Governor Cuomo, who 
pardoned his almost 30-year-old drug conviction, that he was released.
  Under this legislation, had Mr. Cardona been deported and then 
illegally reentered the country to see his wife and daughter, he would 
face up to 10 years in prison because of his decades-old prior 
conviction. Even if he presented himself to border agents and sought 
asylum, on the reasonable basis that he had reasonable fears because, 
in fact, two of his brothers back in Colombia have been murdered, he 
would still be subject to prosecution and massive penalties, just for 
appearing at the border.
  This is both callous and irrational. This bill would dramatically 
expand the mass incarceration of immigrants, even for those with minor 
offenses and those who simply seek refuge in our country.
  It serves no purpose, increases no one's safety, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this cruel legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to quote from a 
letter from the Sergeants Benevolent Association that we received 2 
days ago in support of Kate's Law, and I want to read a sentence from 
it.
  ``In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from those aliens 
who enter the United States illegally, commit crimes here, are 
deported, and who illegally return to the U.S. and commit additional 
crimes has become a top concern of the law enforcement community.''
  This is from the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, 
City of New York. I include it in the Record.

         Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police Department, City 
           of New York,
                                      New York, NY, June 27, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing on behalf of the more than 
     13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of the 
     New York City Police Department to advise you of our strong 
     support for H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' that will be 
     considered by the House of Representatives later this week. 
     We are grateful that the Congress is moving expeditiously to 
     take up this important legislation.
       In recent years, the need to protect our citizens from 
     those aliens who enter the United States illegally, commit 
     crimes here, are deported, and who illegally return to the 
     U.S. and commit additional crimes has become a top concern of 
     the law enforcement community. It is a problem that was 
     exemplified in the horrific murder of the young woman in 
     whose honor H.R. 3004 is named, Kate Steinle. In 2015, Ms. 
     Steinle was shot and killed on a San Francisco pier while out 
     for a walk with her father. Her murderer was a career 
     criminal who had already been deported five previous times, 
     had a long criminal history, had served multiple prison 
     sentences, and was on probation in Texas at the time of the 
     shooting. Nearly two years has passed since Steinle's murder, 
     and little has been done to address the scourge of violence 
     perpetrated by those who break our laws and continue to 
     illegally reenter the United States. That is why prompt 
     congressional action on ``Kate's Law'' is so critically 
     important.
       H.R. 3004 will ensure that those deported aliens with 
     criminal histories who decide to illegally reenter the U.S. 
     will face stiff prison sentences upon their return. First, 
     the bill provides for monetary fines and between 10 and 25 
     years in prison for those aliens deported or removed who 
     illegally return, depending on the severity of their prior 
     crimes.

[[Page 10170]]

     In addition, this legislation provides for up to 10 years in 
     prison for any alien who has been refused entry, deported, or 
     removed from the U.S. three times or more, but who returns or 
     attempts to reenter the U.S.
       Finally, for any criminal aliens who were removed from the 
     U.S. prior to the completion of a prison term and who then 
     attempt to reenter, H.R. 3004 requires that such individuals 
     be incarcerated for the remainder of their sentenced prison 
     term without any possibility for parole or supervised 
     release. The passage of ``Kate's Law'' is critical to 
     ensuring that deported aliens with criminal records are 
     deterred from illegally reentering the U.S., and will help 
     law enforcement protect our communities from violent 
     criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present 
     in the U.S.
       On behalf of the membership of the Sergeants Benevolent 
     Association, thank you again for your efforts on this and 
     other issues important to law enforcement across the nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ed Mullins,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in support of Kate's Law and No Sanctuary for 
Criminals Act. These important bills represent an important step 
towards keeping Americans safe.
  Yesterday, I participated in a roundtable discussion at the White 
House with the President and family members of individuals who were 
murdered by criminal illegal immigrants.
  The stories I heard were heartbreaking. Sadly, they are not uncommon. 
See, when I was mayor of Hazleton, I sat with the victims' families and 
listened to their stories. These stories have changed my life.
  Everyone talks about the illegal immigrant, but very seldom do we 
ever talk about the victims. I sat with the family of Derek Kichline, a 
29-year-old Hazleton city man and father of three young children who 
was murdered by the head of the Latin Kings while working on his pickup 
truck in his driveway.
  Derek's killer was arrested and let go in New York City, a sanctuary 
city.
  I also talked with the father of Carly Snyder, a beautiful 21-year-
old girl who was studying to be a veterinarian. Her father told me that 
Carly was brutally stabbed 37 times and murdered by her next door 
neighbor. She had knife wounds on the palms of her hand and knife 
wounds in her back as she died on the kitchen floor.
  An illegal immigration and Federal fugitive with a long history of 
gang violence and drug use killed Carly. Carly's killer was apprehended 
trying to cross the southern border but was released on $5,000 bond and 
disappeared into the United States until one day he showed up at Carly 
Snyder's doorstep.
  I have never forgotten these stories. I understand that there is 
nothing that we can do to bring these people back. I know there is 
nothing we can do to relieve the pain that their families still feel.
  But by passing these bills, we can prevent these crimes from 
happening to other families. Let me be clear: violent crimes committed 
by illegal immigrants are preventable. The illegal immigrant who 
committed these violent crimes should not have been present in this 
country and certainly should not have been walking around free. Too 
many mayors and local governments think that they are above Federal 
law, and we have a chance to change that today.
  We can send a clear message to the American people that their 
government is serious about keeping them safe. I thank the President 
today for standing up for the victims of these preventable crimes, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same by voting ``yes'' on these 
important bills.
  This is a test of the willingness of Congress to stand for families 
across this country who have lost loved ones to crimes committed by 
criminals who had no business being in this country in the first place. 
It is time that we side with the victims like Derek Kichline, Carly 
Snyder, and Kate Steinle instead of criminals.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about H.R. 3004, but let me 
first talk about two of my constituents, Officer Jose Vargas, one of 
the most decorated police officers in the State of California, and the 
other, Jose Angel Garibay, a young marine that made the ultimate 
sacrifice for America.
  In 1977, Jose Vargas was named as 1 of the 10 most outstanding police 
officers in America by the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police. But it wasn't always that way. At age 16, Jose Vargas headed 
north to the border for a better life.
  Officer Vargas crossed the border 15 times over 4 years. Officer 
Vargas was probably the only police officer who we know that spent time 
in a Federal holding cell. America today is better because of Jose 
Vargas. Jose Vargas added to the greatness of this country and to the 
security of this country.
  Jose Angel Garibay, a young marine, was the first soldier from Orange 
County, California, to make the ultimate sacrifice in the Middle East. 
He also came to this country undocumented and became a U.S. citizen 
posthumously.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, we must keep out the bad hombres. We don't welcome 
those who would do us harm, but America must continue to welcome those 
who come to America to work hard and to contribute. This bill fails to 
make this critical and important distinction.
  At the end of the day, we are all immigrants and we are all part of 
this great country, and I urge my colleagues today: do not brand 
millions of immigrants as criminals when their only crime is searching 
for the American Dream.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3004.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and members of the 
House Judiciary Committee for their work on this issue. And as a member 
of the Homeland Security Committee, the issues being debated and voted 
on this week are an area of critical importance when it comes to 
keeping our Nation and our people safe.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. I am the grandson of 
Irish immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. Both must be respected 
and honored by all of us. Left, right, or center, we can all agree that 
our immigration system is broken, and given that broken status, it is 
the responsibility of this body to fix it. This goal cannot be achieved 
by selectively choosing which laws we enforce and which laws we ignore.
  As a former FBI agent, I worked each day to keep Americans and keep 
our Nation safe. And as a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted cases that 
resulted in the removal of violent felons who were in our country 
illegally in order to keep our communities safe.
  I have seen firsthand the threats our Nation faces from a fragmented 
and broken immigration system and a porous border. We cannot and must 
not allow partisanship to prevent sensible fixes from being 
implemented. Our Nation's security depends on us.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is one borne of a 
preventable tragedy. Kate Steinle was a bright, aspiring, 32-year-old 
woman with a life of possibilities ahead of her. Let this bill be her 
legacy. Let this bill result in Kate Steinle saving the lives of 
others. Let us do her that honor.
  Kate's Law will increase penalties for those who reenter our country 
following their removal from the U.S., including Federal prison 
sentences up to 25 years for those previously deported who have 
criminal records.
  Moreover, this bill supports our brave women and men in law 
enforcement as they work to keep violent gangs and criminal cartels, 
including the likes of MS-13, out of our communities. I am a cosponsor 
of this legislation, and I am proud to advance it.
  Mr. Speaker, the time is now for us to step up and protect those who 
elected us to serve on their behalf, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
make a bold bipartisan statement to our communities back home today. 
Join me in support of H.R. 3004. Let's get this done for Kate Steinle 
and her family.

[[Page 10171]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of 
opposition to H.R. 3004, namely, the Federal Defenders of New York and 
407 local, State, national immigrant civil rights, faith, and labor 
organizations.

                                                 Federal Defenders


                                             of New York, Inc.

                                      New York, NY, June 29, 2017.
     Re H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ryan, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Conyers: 
     We write on behalf of the Federal Public and Community 
     Defenders in response to inquiries for our views on H.R. 
     3004. We oppose the bill for the following reasons.
       H.R. 3004 would make it a crime to openly and directly 
     present oneself to immigration officials seeking asylum, 
     temporary protection, or for other innocent reasons. In doing 
     so, the bill would incentivize people with genuine claims of 
     fear to enter the country surreptitiously.
       Even while criminalizing essentially innocent conduct and 
     drastically increasing potential penalties, the bill would 
     purport to deprive defendants of the right to challenge the 
     validity of fundamentally unfair or unlawful removal orders.
       The bill would transform a basic element of the criminal 
     offense into an affirmative defense and would thereby 
     unfairly place the burden on the alien to produce records in 
     the government's control.
       The bill would unjustifiably increase potential penalties, 
     including for those with truly petty criminal records, and 
     create a significant risk that defendants, in mass guilty 
     plea proceedings on the border as occur now, would be 
     pressured to admit prior convictions that they do not have.
       Finally, H.R. 3004 raises serious federalism issues and 
     would impinge on States' sovereign interests by ordering them 
     to impose certain state prison sentences thereby impeding 
     States' ability to manage their own criminal justice systems 
     and prison populations.
       The bill would harm individuals, families and communities 
     not just on the border but across the nation. Nearly 21 
     percent of reentry prosecutions in fiscal year 2016 were in 
     districts other than those on the southwest border, in every 
     state and district in the country. And though there may be a 
     perception that illegal reentry offenders are dangerous 
     criminals, the motive for most people returning to the United 
     States after being removed is to reunite with family, return 
     to the only place they know as home, seek work to support 
     their families, or flee violence or persecution in their home 
     countries. Further, according to a recent Sentencing 
     Commission study, one quarter of reentry offenders had no 
     prior conviction described in Sec. 1326(b), and the most 
     common prior offense was driving under the influence, 
     followed by minor non-violent misdemeanors and felonies, 
     illegal entry, illegal reentry, and simple possession of 
     drugs. Nearly half (49.5%) had children in the United States, 
     and over two thirds (67.1%) had relatives in this country. 
     Over half (53.5%) were under the age of 18 when they first 
     entered the United States, and almost three quarters (74.5%) 
     had worked here for more than a year at some point before 
     their arrest. These are not hardened criminals.


   I. The Bill Would Make It a Crime To Openly and Directly Present 
Oneself to Immigration Officials, Seeking Asylum, Temporary Protection, 
or for Other Innocent Reasons, and Would Thus Incentivize Surreptitious 
                                 Entry

       The bill would add as criminal acts in violation of 8 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1326, ``crosses the border'' or ``attempts to 
     cross the border,'' and would define ``crosses the border'' 
     as the ``physical act of crossing the border, regardless of 
     whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' This 
     would mean that people previously denied admission or removed 
     who present themselves at a designated port of entry seeking 
     asylum or for other innocent reasons, and who intend to be 
     and are in fact under official restraint, would for the first 
     time be guilty of violating Sec. 1326.
       Freedom from official restraint is an essential part of the 
     definition of entering, attempting to enter, and being found 
     in the United States under the law of most circuits. Entering 
     has long required both ``physical presence'' in the country 
     and ``freedom from official restraint.'' Attempting to enter 
     requires proof of specific intent to commit the completed 
     offense of entry, and so requires intent to enter ``free of 
     official restraint.'' Similarly, an alien cannot be ``found 
     in'' the United States unless he has been free from official 
     restraint. An alien is under official restraint whenever he 
     ``lacks the freedom to go at large and mix with the 
     population,'' including when he directly and voluntarily 
     surrenders himself to immigration officials at a port of 
     entry to seek asylum, protection, or imprisonment.
       Thus, an alien who walked directly across the border to a 
     marked border patrol car and asked to be taken into custody 
     did not attempt to re-enter the United States because he 
     intended to be, and was, under official restraint. Likewise, 
     an alien who crossed the border after being beaten by gang 
     members in Mexico, in a delusional belief that they were 
     chasing him, with the sole intent of placing himself in the 
     protective custody of U.S. officials, could not be guilty of 
     attempting to enter. In a similar case, the government 
     dismissed the charges after the border patrol agent's report 
     confirmed that the defendant had crossed the border and asked 
     the agent for protection from people he feared were trying to 
     kill him. Similarly, an alien who went directly to the border 
     station and presented himself for entry was not ``found in'' 
     the United States because he was never free from official 
     restraint.
       Thus, under current law, an alien who directly and overtly 
     presents herself to immigration officials at a port of entry, 
     as opposed to evading official restraint, has not violated 
     Sec. 1326; even one who crosses the border outside a port of 
     entry but in sight of immigration officials, and who presents 
     herself directly to such officials, has not done so. But 
     absent the ``freedom from official restraint'' requirement, 
     the law would ``make criminals out of persons who, for any 
     number of innocent reasons, approach immigration officials at 
     the border.'' Argueta-Rosales, 819 F.3d at 1160. ``For 
     example, [an alien] might approach a port of entry to seek 
     asylum, or he might be under the mistaken assumption that he 
     has been granted permission to reenter. Under those 
     circumstances, the alien would not have committed the 
     gravamen of the offense of attempted illegal entry in 
     violation of Sec. 1326(a).'' United States v. Valdez-Novoa, 
     780 F.3d 906, 923 (9th Cir. 2015) (Bybee, J.). Because ``in a 
     literal and physical sense a person coming from abroad enters 
     the United States whenever he reaches any land, water or air 
     space within the territorial limits of this nation,'' 
     ``freedom from official restraint must be added to physical 
     presence.'' Vavilatos, 209 F.2d at 197.
       Permitting arrest and prosecution regardless of whether the 
     person was free from official restraint is particularly 
     troubling because although border patrol agents are required 
     by law to refer an alien for a ``credible fear'' or 
     ``reasonable fear'' interview with an asylum officer upon 
     indication that she fears persecution or has suffered or may 
     suffer torture, people are increasingly being turned away at 
     the border without the required protection screening. Under 
     H.R. 3004, agents would now be empowered to arrest them 
     rather than turn them away.
       By eliminating the ``freedom from official restraint'' 
     requirement, the bill would cast aside well-settled century-
     old law from the civil immigration context that for nearly as 
     long has functioned well in the criminal immigration context 
     to distinguish illicit or clandestine entries from legitimate 
     attempts to bring oneself to the attention of U.S. 
     authorities at the border.
       Since it would now be a crime to openly seek help, H.R. 
     3004 would have the perverse effect of incentivizing people 
     with genuine claims of fear to ``jump the fence'' in the hope 
     of not being caught and returned to a country where the 
     danger is real. Faced with a choice between being killed or 
     risking being caught and removed, the logical, life-
     sustaining choice is obvious.


    II. The Bill Would Perversely Criminalize Repeated Unsuccessful 
Attempts to Gain Asylum, Even As Border Patrol Agents Increasingly Turn 
                Away Asylum Seekers in Violation of Law

       The bill would create a new crime for an alien who has been 
     denied admission, excluded, deported or removed three or more 
     times who subsequently enters, attempts to enter, crosses the 
     border, attempts to cross the border, or is found in the 
     United States, subject to punishment for up to ten years. 
     This would criminalize, for the first time, repeated efforts 
     to seek asylum that are genuine but unsuccessful, as each 
     attempt counts as a denial of admission or removal.
       As noted above, border patrol agents are increasingly 
     turning away asylum seekers without referring them for 
     appropriate screening as required by law. Human rights 
     organizations have documented at least 125 cases of asylum 
     seekers being turned away without proper safeguards to 
     protect their right to seek protection between November 2016 
     and April 2017, often repeatedly. For example, a Honduran 
     family whose son was murdered by a gang after he was denied 
     asylum, another Honduran family whose son showed the agent a 
     bullet hole wound in his chest, and a Mexican woman whose 
     father, son, grandfather and uncle were all killed within 
     seven days, were repeatedly turned away without referral for 
     protection screening or asylum adjudication. Agents informed 
     people seeking refuge that the United States no longer gives 
     asylum, threatened them with force, or threatened to call 
     Mexican immigration authorities to deport them to the country 
     they were fleeing.
       A person who presents himself at a port of entry without a 
     valid visa is subject to denial of admission or expedited 
     removal. But

[[Page 10172]]

     if such a person expresses fear of return, he is entitled by 
     law not to be expelled but to be interviewed by an asylum 
     officer. When border patrol agents simply expel people who 
     express fear without allowing them a chance to be interviewed 
     and to press their claims, the agents are breaking the law 
     and giving these people a removal order or a denial of 
     admission that they should not have. Thus, bona fide asylum-
     seekers--those most likely to accumulate ``three strikes''--
     would face criminal prosecution rather than what they are 
     entitled to--a non-adversarial interview with an asylum 
     officer that could ultimately lead to persecution-based 
     relief.


 III. The Bill Would Purport to Unconstitutionally Prohibit Challenges 
                   to the Validity of Removal Orders

       The bill would state that ``an alien may not challenge the 
     validity of any prior removal order concerning the alien.'' 
     This provision, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates the 
     overreaching and unduly harsh nature of these proposed 
     changes to existing law. The bill seeks to visit criminal 
     convictions and drastic penalties on noncitizens who reenter 
     even when the administrative process that led to their 
     original deportation or removal was fundamentally unfair or 
     achieved an unlawful result, and even when they were deprived 
     of judicial review of that fundamental injustice. The Supreme 
     Court long ago held, in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 
     U.S. 828 (1987), that a defendant cannot be convicted and 
     punished under Sec. 1326 when the deportation order was 
     issued in an agency proceeding bereft of due process that no 
     court ever reviewed. But this bill seeks to do precisely 
     that, and at the same time to criminalize attempts to enter 
     the country legally and in most cases to increase the 
     penalties that may be imposed.


   IV. The Affirmative Defenses Would Be Unavailable To Most, Do Not 
 Address Any Existing Problem, and Would Unfairly Place the Burden on 
       Defendants to Produce Records In the Government's Control

       The bill would purport to create two affirmative defenses: 
     (1) ``prior to the alleged violation,'' the alien ``sought 
     and received express consent of [DHS] to reapply for 
     admission,'' or (2) ``with respect to an alien previously 
     denied admission and removed,'' the alien ``was not required 
     to obtain such advance consent under the [INA] or any prior 
     Act,'' and ``had complied with all other laws and regulations 
     governing his or her admission into the United States.'' The 
     first defense would be unavailable to anyone who did not have 
     the wherewithal, resources and time to file the proper form 
     and get it approved before arriving in the United States. The 
     second defense is not available to anyone whose period of 
     inadmissibility has not expired, usually ten years. These 
     requirements are simply unrealistic for those with little or 
     no education or money or who are fleeing violence.
       Moreover, this is a solution in search of a problem, and it 
     would undermine due process. Because the absence of most of 
     these conditions is currently an element, see 8 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1326(a)(2), the government routinely provides the 
     defense with the relevant records, which are in the 
     individual's ``A file,'' maintained in government custody and 
     otherwise available to the individual only through a FOIA 
     request. Placing the burden on the defendant to prove an 
     affirmative defense would illogically and unfairly require 
     him to produce records that are in the government's control.


V. The Bill Would Unjustifiably Increase Potential Penalties, Including 
              for Those With Truly Petty Criminal Records

       While it appears that the statutory maxima would increase 
     for most defendants under the bill, there is no evidence that 
     any increase is needed to reflect the seriousness of these 
     offenses, or that such increases would be effective in 
     deterring illegal immigration. At the same time, the cost of 
     additional incarceration would be steep--approximately 
     $32,000 per prisoner per year. If each of the 16,000 persons 
     convicted of illegal reentry in 2016 received one additional 
     year, it would cost the taxpayers an extra half a billion 
     dollars.
       Increasing sentences for these offenders is also 
     unnecessary and unfair because noncitizens suffer much 
     harsher conditions of confinement than other federal 
     prisoners. BOP contracts with private prison companies to 
     detain noncitizens convicted of immigration offenses and 
     other federal crimes. A recent analysis shows that many 
     persons incarcerated in ``immigrant only contract prisons'' 
     suffer serious medical neglect, in some cases leading to 
     death. An investigation done by the American Civil Liberties 
     Union found that ``the men held in these private prisons are 
     subjected to shocking abuse and mistreatment, and 
     discriminated against by BOP policies that impede family 
     contact and exclude them from rehabilitative programs.''
       Two of the penalty increases are particularly unwarranted. 
     The bill would increase a defendant's statutory maximum from 
     two to 10 years if he was removed subsequent to conviction of 
     any three misdemeanors, whereas the 10-year maximum currently 
     applies only if the three misdemeanors involved drugs, crimes 
     against the person, or both. This would apply to a re-entrant 
     with a truly petty criminal record. If the defendant had 
     three misdemeanor convictions for driving without a license, 
     a common scenario for undocumented immigrants and other 
     impoverished people, his maximum sentence would more than 
     triple. And because the bill does not require that the three 
     misdemeanors stem from three separate occasions, a 10-year 
     statutory maximum would apply to a re-entrant with 
     convictions from a single incident for disorderly conduct, 
     public intoxication and public urination.
       Likewise, the 25-year maximum for any three felonies would 
     increase the maximum sentence by 15 years for garden variety 
     felonies, such as felony possession of a small quantity of 
     drugs. Worse, if the definition of ``felony'' means any 
     offense ``punishable by a term of more than 1 year under the 
     laws of'' the convicting jurisdiction, it would punish 
     defendants who were never convicted of a felony by up to 25 
     years, because the maximum punishment is more than one year 
     for misdemeanors in many states, including Colorado, Iowa, 
     Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South 
     Carolina, and Vermont. We are also concerned that definition 
     of ``felony,'' by mistake or by design, indicates that if a 
     particular kind of offense is punishable by more than one 
     year in any jurisdiction, it is a felony; it states that 
     ``any offense'' is a felony if it is punishable by more than 
     one year ``under the laws of the United States, any State, or 
     a foreign government.''


 VI. The Bill Would Create A Significant Risk That Defendants Would Be 
    Pressured Into Admitting Prior Convictions That They Do Not Have

       The bill would require that prior convictions upon which 
     increased statutory maxima are based be alleged in an 
     indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or 
     admitted by the defendant. Records of prior convictions are 
     notoriously unreliable and national criminal databases that 
     generate ``rap sheets'' frequently contain purported 
     convictions that have been misrecorded, expunged, or even 
     belong to other individuals. In border districts where the 
     great majority of illegal re-entry prosecutions take place, 
     re-entry cases have often been rapidly ``processed'' in 
     batches of up to eighty defendants at once, with 99% of cases 
     ending in guilty pleas. Given the way these cases are handled 
     on the border, and the fact that many if not most of the 
     defendants speak little or no English and have little or no 
     education, this provision carries a significant risk that 
     defendants will be pressured to admit to convictions they do 
     not have and thus significantly raise their sentencing 
     exposure.


VII. The Bill Would Impinge on States' Sovereign Interests in Managing 
                      Their Own Prison Populations

       The bill would mandate that any alien removed pursuant to 8 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1231(a)(4) who enters or attempts to enter, 
     crosses or attempts to cross the border, or is found in the 
     United States, ``shall be incarcerated for the remainder of 
     the sentence that was pending at the time of deportation 
     without any reduction for parole or supervised release'' 
     unless the alien affirmatively demonstrates express consent. 
     Section 1231(a)(4)(B) provides that the Attorney General may 
     remove an alien convicted of a non-violent offense before he 
     has completed a sentence of imprisonment (i) of an alien in 
     in federal custody and the Attorney General determines that 
     removal is appropriate and in the best interest of the United 
     States, (ii) of an alien in State custody if the chief state 
     official determines that removal is appropriate and in the 
     best interest of the State and submits a written request for 
     removal. Thus, for example, an alien sentenced to 8 years who 
     is eligible for parole in 6 years may apply for early 
     conditional release and be removed after 5 years. Under H.R. 
     3004, if he illegally re-entered thereafter, he would be 
     required to serve all three years that were pending when he 
     was removed.
       As far as we are aware, Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(i) has never 
     been systematically implemented for federal inmates. Some 
     states, however, have implemented some sort of program to 
     avail themselves of Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii). A handful have 
     entered into an MOU with ICE in which they agree that a 
     person removed pursuant to Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) who returns 
     illegally will serve the remainder of the original sentence. 
     Other states release prisoners to ICE under 
     Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) through state legislation or parole 
     board policy under which they do not agree to that condition.
       H.R. 3004 would require any State that releases a prisoner 
     to ICE under Sec. 1231(a)(4)(B)(ii) to incarcerate such a 
     person for the remainder of the sentence should they return 
     unlawfully. It would thus impinge on States' sovereign 
     interests in managing their own prison populations according 
     to their own priorities and resources. The bill would remove 
     the flexibility that States currently have to treat 
     unlawfully returned prisoners as they see fit, and would 
     ossify the ICE MOU into law.
       Thank you for considering our views, and please do not 
     hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
           Very Truly Yours,
     Neil Fulton,
       Federal Defender, North and South Dakota, Co-Chair,

[[Page 10173]]

     Federal Defender Legislative Committee.
     David Patton,
       Executive Director, Federal Defenders of New York, Co-
     Chair, Federal Defender Legislative Committee.
     Jon Sands,
       Federal Defender, District of Arizona, Co-Chair, Federal 
     Defender Legislative Committee.
                                  ____

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, 
         and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned 
     local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-
     based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 
     3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public 
     safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and 
     its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and 
     incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly 
     needed law enforcement funding for state and local 
     jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment, 
     and unnecessarily expands the government's detention 
     apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal 
     government's ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for 
     immigration-based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian 
     protections for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on 
     the failed experiment of incarceration for immigration 
     violations.
       Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or 
     ordinances that disentangle their state and local law 
     enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law. 
     The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to 
     attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do 
     not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and 
     local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the 
     U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally 
     infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes 
     jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants, 
     including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and 
     any other federal grant related to law enforcement or 
     immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding 
     federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely 
     runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on 
     commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law 
     professors.
       ``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public 
     safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of 
     crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local 
     law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have 
     repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that 
     community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public 
     safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime 
     and more economic development than similarly situated non-
     ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed 
     federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the 
     ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the 
     public safety needs of their communities.
       Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the 
     immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for 
     immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation 
     Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with 
     employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under 
     Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes 
     immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical 
     measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration, 
     wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished 
     thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the 
     United States to reunite with their children and loved ones. 
     We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry 
     would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison 
     population, and cost billions of dollars.
       Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only 
     legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just 
     immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to 
     citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring 
     Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation 
     programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation 
     that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic 
     processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns 
     represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to 
     enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of 
     the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for 
     Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
       Please contact Jose Magana-Salgado, of the Immigrant Legal 
     Resource Center if you have any questions regarding this 
     letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
       National Organizations:
       America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans 
     Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense 
     and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice--ANC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law 
     Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO 
     (APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; 
     ASISTA; Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Black Alliance for Just 
     Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network; 
     Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American 
     Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender & 
     Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for 
     New Community.
       Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church 
     (Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries; 
     Christian Community Development Association; Church World 
     Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center 
     for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the 
     People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for 
     Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights 
     & Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples 
     Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy 
     Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights 
     Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends 
     Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.
       Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic 
     Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit 
     Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource 
     Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith 
     Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma 
     chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice 
     Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal; 
     Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working 
     Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
       League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee 
     Chapter, Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for 
     Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic 
     Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American 
     Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific 
     Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing 
     Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National 
     lmmigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center; 
     National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian 
     American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors; 
     National Korean American Service & Education Consortium 
     (NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
       National Latina/o Psychological Association; National 
     Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; 
     National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National 
     Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for 
     Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American 
     Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National 
     Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and 
     Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES); 
     School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the 
     Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor; 
     Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern 
     Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center; 
     T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates for 
     Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class Think 
     Tank.
       The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The 
     Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing 
     Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church 
     and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; 
     UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey; 
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United 
     Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of 
     Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee & 
     Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong 
     Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families; 
     Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.
       State and Local Organizations: (MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes 
     Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE; 580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation 
     Serving UCLA; Acting in Community Together in Organizing 
     Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates for Basic Legal 
     Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All; Alliance San Diego; 
     Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors (AKIN); American 
     Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United Community 
     Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Atlanta; Asian 
     Americans Advancing Justice--LA; Asian Americans United; 
     Asian Counseling and Referral Service; Asian Law Alliance; 
     Asian Pacific American Legal

[[Page 10174]]

     Resource Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.
       Bear Creek United Methodist Church-Congregation Kol Ami 
     Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services; 
     Brighton Park Neighborhood Council; Cabrini Immigrant 
     Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier Families; Canal 
     Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition; CASA; 
     Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San Jose; Catholic 
     Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco, San Mateo & 
     Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.; Central 
     American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish Voice 
     for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of 
     Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative 
     (CVIIC); Centro Laboral de Graton.
       Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Ran; Centro 
     Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership 
     Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle; 
     Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador 
     Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland 
     Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos--CLILA; 
     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of 
     African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a 
     program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado 
     People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro 
     Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca; 
     Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc; Community 
     Legal Services and Counseling Center.
       Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto: Community of 
     Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Serivces, Inc; 
     CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for 
     Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the Most 
     Good Montogomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters Grand Rapids 
     (MI); Sanctuary Covenant; Ecumenical Ministries of Orgegon; 
     EL CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan Church; 
     Emerald Isle Immigration Center; Employee Rights Center; 
     Encuentro; End Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry Frean 
     Presbyterian Church of St. Louis.
       Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal 
     Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House; 
     First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian 
     Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for 
     Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc. 
     (FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community 
     Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-
     Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; 
     Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant 
     Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York 
     Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for 
     Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion 
     Hispanoamericano; HACES.
       Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS 
     Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama; 
     Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human 
     Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District; 
     Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel 
     Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice 
     Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; 
     Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and 
     Children; Inland Empire--Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC); 
     Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International 
     Institute of Buffalo; Irish International Immigrant Center; 
     IRTF--InterReligious Task Force on Central America and 
     Colombia.
       Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--
     Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace--Austin; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace--Cleveland; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace--Denver; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace--Los 
     Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace--Madison; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace--Philadelphia; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace--
     Portland; Jewish Voice for Peace--San Diego; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace--Syracuse, NY; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Triangle NC; Jolt.
       Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our 
     Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors 
     West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace-Hudson Valley; 
     Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for 
     College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance 
     Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean 
     Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos 
     Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette 
     Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; 
     Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino 
     Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal 
     Aid Society of San Mateo County.
       Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House Inc; Long Island 
     Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition; 
     Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis 
     Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action 
     Project; Migrant Justice / Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center 
     for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi 
     Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services; 
     Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA); 
     Mujeres Unidas y Activas; Mundo Maya Foundation; National 
     Lawyers Guild--Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for 
     Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico 
     Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.
       New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York 
     Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ 
     Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of 
     Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey 
     chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice 
     for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant 
     Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD; 
     Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice; 
     Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice--IMIrJ; 
     Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront 
     Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO--West Suburban Action 
     Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and 
     Citizenship Coalition.
       Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center; 
     Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc. 
     (POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee; 
     Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of 
     Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; 
     Project Hope-Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound 
     Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA); Racial Justice 
     Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees 
     Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange 
     County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN); 
     Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA 
     (Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant 
     Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).
       Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/
     Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis 
     Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc; Skagit 
     Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South 
     Asian Fund for Education, Scholarship and Training (SAFEST); 
     South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration 
     Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St. John of God 
     Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community 
     House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; 
     Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community 
     Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The 
     International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal 
     Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition; 
     Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.
       Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian 
     Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA 
     Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African 
     Organization; United Families; University Leadership 
     Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and 
     Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT; 
     UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense 
     Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal 
     Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights; 
     Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment; 
     Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC 
     Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX).
       Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in 
     Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; 
     YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater 
     Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA 
     Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island.
       YWCA NE KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the 
     University of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena-Foothill 
     Valley; YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern 
     Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA 
     Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in 
opposition to this bill from the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence, the CATO Institute, Church World Service, and the 
ACLU.

                                        National Task Force to End


                                   Sexual & Domestic Violence,

                                                    June 27, 2017.
       The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (NTF), comprised of national leadership organizations 
     advocating on behalf of sexual assault and domestic violence 
     victims and representing hundreds of organizations across the 
     country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence 
     receive the protections they deserve, write to express our 
     deep concerns about the impact that H.R. 3003, the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, or ``Kate's 
     Law,''

[[Page 10175]]

     will have on victims fleeing or recovering from sexual 
     assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, and on 
     communities at large.
       This year is the twenty-third anniversary of the bipartisan 
     Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') which has, since it was 
     first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant 
     victims of domestic and sexual violence. H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will have the effect of punishing immigrant survivors 
     and their children and pushing them into the shadows and into 
     danger, undermining the very purpose of VAWA. Specifically, 
     the nation's leading national organizations that address 
     domestic and sexual assault oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 
     because:
       Community trust policies are critical tools for increasing 
     community safety. Laws that seek to intertwine the federal 
     immigration and local law enforcement systems will undermine 
     the Congressional purpose of protections enacted under VAWA 
     and will have the chilling effect of pushing immigrant 
     victims into the shadows and undermining public safety. 
     Immigration enforcement must be implemented in a way that 
     supports local community policing and sustains community 
     trust in working with local law enforcement. H.R. 3003 runs 
     contrary to community policing efforts and will deter 
     immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors not 
     only from reporting crimes, but also from seeking help for 
     themselves and their children. While H.R. 3003 does not 
     require that local law enforcement arrest or report immigrant 
     victims or witnesses of criminal activity, the language in 
     the bill provides no restriction prohibiting such practices.
       Perpetrators use fear of deportation as tool of abuse. 
     Local policies that minimize the intertwining of local law 
     enforcement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (ICE) help protect the most vulnerable victims by creating 
     trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community, 
     which in turn help protect entire communities. Abusers and 
     traffickers use the fear of deportation of their victims as a 
     tool to silence and trap them. If immigrants are afraid to 
     call the police because of fear of deportation, they become 
     more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Not only are the 
     individual victims and their children harmed, but their fear 
     of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting 
     violent perpetrators or seeking protection and, as a result, 
     dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.
       As VAWA recognizes, immigrant victims of violent crimes 
     often do not contact law enforcement due to fear that they 
     will be deported. Immigrants are already afraid of contacting 
     the police and H.R. 3003 proposes to further intertwine 
     federal immigration and local law enforcement systems will 
     only exacerbate this fear. The result is that perpetrators 
     will be able to continue to harm others, both immigrant and 
     U.S. Citizen victims alike. Since January of 2017, victim 
     advocates have been describing the immense fear expressed by 
     immigrant victims and their reluctance to reach out for help 
     from police. A recent survey of over 700 advocates and 
     attorneys at domestic violence and sexual assault programs 
     indicate that immigrant victims are expressing heightened 
     fears and concerns about immigration enforcement, with 78% of 
     advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are describing 
     fear of contacting the police; 75% of them reporting that 
     victims are afraid of going to court; and 43% reporting 
     working with immigrant victims who are choosing not to move 
     forward with criminal charges or obtaining protective orders.
       In addition, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie 
     Beck, reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among 
     Latinos has dropped significantly this year, possibly due to 
     concerns that police interaction could result in deportation. 
     According to Chief Beck, reports of sexual assault have 
     dropped 25 percent among Los Angeles' Latino population since 
     the beginning of the year compared to a three percent drop 
     among non-Latino victims. Similarly, reports of spousal abuse 
     among Latinos fell by about 10 percent among Latinos whereas 
     the decline among non-Latinos was four percent. The Houston 
     Police Department reported in April that the number of 
     Hispanics reporting rape is down 42.8 percent from last year. 
     In Denver, CO, the Denver City Attorney has reported that 
     some domestic violence victims are declining to testify in 
     court. As of late February, the City Attorney's Office had 
     dropped four cases because the victims fear that ICE officers 
     will arrest and deport them. Both the City Attorney and 
     Aurora Police Chief have spoken on the importance of having 
     trust with the immigrant community in order to maintain 
     public safety and prosecute crime?


           H.R. 3003 Will Unfairly Punish Entire Communities

       H.R. 3003 punishes localities that follow Constitutional 
     guidelines and refuse to honor detainer requests that are not 
     supported by due process mandates. H.R. 3003 likely covers 
     more than 600 jurisdictions across the country, most of which 
     do not characterize their policies to follow constitutional 
     mandates as ``sanctuary'' policies. H.R. 3003 penalizes 
     jurisdictions by eliminating their access to various federal 
     grants, including federal law enforcement grants, such as the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and 
     other federal grants related to law enforcement or 
     immigration, such as those that fund forensic rape kit 
     analysis. Withholding federal law enforcement funding would, 
     ironically, undermine the ability of local jurisdictions to 
     combat and prevent crime in their communities.
       In addition, the fiscal impact of both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will result in limited federal law enforcement resources 
     being further reduced as a result of shifting funding from 
     enforcing federal criminal laws addressing violent crimes, 
     including those protecting victims of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, and human trafficking, to the detention and 
     prosecution of many non-violent immigration law violators.


          H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 Will Unfairly Punish Victims

       By greatly expanding mandatory detention and expanding 
     criminal penalties for reentry, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will 
     have harsh consequences for immigrant survivors. Victims of 
     human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are 
     often at risk of being arrested and convicted. In recognition 
     of this fact, existing ICE guidance cites the example of when 
     police respond to a domestic violence call, both parties may 
     be arrested or a survivor who acted in self-defense may be 
     wrongly accused. In addition, if the abuser speaks English 
     better than the survivor, or if other language or cultural 
     barriers (or fear of retaliation from the abuser) prevent the 
     survivor from fully disclosing the abuse suffered, a survivor 
     faces charges and tremendous pressure to plead guilty 
     (without being advised about the long-term consequences) in 
     order to be released from jail and reunited with her 
     children. In addition, victims of trafficking are often 
     arrested and convicted for prostitution-related offenses. 
     These victims are often desperate to be released and possibly 
     to be reunited with their children following their arrests or 
     pending trial. These factors--combined with poor legal 
     counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of 
     criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will 
     likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused 
     victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of 
     domestic violence charges and/or prostitution. H.R. 3003 
     imposes harsh criminal penalties and H.R. 3004 imposes 
     expanded bases for detention without consideration of 
     mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these 
     victims.
       In addition, H.R. 3004 expands the criminal consequences 
     for re-entry in the U.S. without recognizing the compelling 
     humanitarian circumstances in which victims who have been 
     previously removed return for their safety. Victims of 
     domestic and sexual violence and trafficking fleeing violence 
     in their countries of origin will be penalized for seeking 
     protection from harm. In recent years, women and children 
     fleeing rampant violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and 
     Honduras, have fled to the United States, seeking refuge. 
     Frequently, because of inadequate access to legal 
     representation, they are unable to establish their 
     eligibility for legal protections in the United States, 
     resulting in their removal. In many cases, the risk of 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human trafficking 
     in their countries of origin remain unabated and victims 
     subsequently attempt to reenter the U.S. to protect 
     themselves and their children. Other victims of domestic and 
     sexual violence and trafficking may be deported because their 
     abusers or traffickers isolate them, or prevent them from 
     obtaining lawful immigration status. They are deported, with 
     some victims having to leave their children behind in the 
     custody of their abusers or traffickers. Under H.R. 3004, 
     these victims risk harsh criminal penalties for re-entry for 
     attempting to protect themselves and their children.
       On behalf of the courageous survivors of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, dating violence, stalking and human 
     trafficking that our organizations serve, we urge you to vote 
     against H.R. 3003 and 3004, and to affirm the intent and 
     spirit of VAWA by supporting strong relationships between law 
     enforcement and immigrant communities, which is critical for 
     public safety in general, and particularly essential for 
     domestic and sexual violence victims and their children.
           Sincerely,
     The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.
                                  ____


                       [From the CATO Institute]

                Kate's Law: A waste of Federal Resources

                            (By David Bier)

       The House of Representatives will vote on a bill this week 
     titled ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). While it is nominally an 
     ``immigration'' bill, its principal aim relates to criminal 
     justice--namely, an increase in the maximum sentences for 
     immigrants who reenter the country illegally after a 
     deportation. The bill is a waste of federal resources. It 
     would likely balloon America's population of nonviolent 
     prisoners, while not protecting Americans against serious 
     criminals.


                 Kate's Law Would Not Have Helped Kate

       The bill's namesake is Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old medical 
     sales rep killed in San

[[Page 10176]]

     Francisco in 2015. Her killer was Juan Francisco Lopez-
     Sanchez who was in the country without status after five 
     removals. Proponents of this bill--providing lengthier prison 
     sentences for people who reenter the country after a 
     removal--believe that this would have somehow helped Kate 
     Steinle. This assertion cannot withstand a moment's contact 
     with the facts of the case, which I have previously laid out 
     in detail here.
       After his last three apprehensions, the government 
     prosecuted Lopez-Sanchez for felony illegal reentry. He 
     served 15 years in federal prison in three five-year 
     increments. None of the facts of this case would have changed 
     if he had served those 15 years consecutively. Indeed, 
     because Lopez-Sanchez never actually made it across the 
     border without being caught since 1997, the only reason that 
     he ended up in San Francisco is because the Bureau of Prisons 
     inexplicably decided to ignore a request for transfer from 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, it 
     shipped him to the city based on a 20-year-old marijuana 
     charge--an offense no longer even exists in the city. Thus, 
     deterrence against reentry has no relevance whatsoever to 
     this case.


                      The Provisions of Kate's Law

       This legislation introduced by House Judiciary Committee 
     Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) should not be confused with 
     other bills of the same name introduced in the House and the 
     Senate by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), 
     respectively. The entire purpose of the prior iterations of 
     ``Kate's Law'' was to create mandatory minimum sentences for 
     crossing the border illegally after a removal. Indeed, the 
     alternate title for the bills was the ``Establishing 
     Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act.'' This new Kate's 
     Law, however, mercifully contains no mandatory minimum 
     sentences--a sign that criminal justice reformers' criticisms 
     of them (including Cato's) have started to penetrate the 
     mainstream.
       But the purpose of the law in the broader sense remains: 
     trying to lock up more immigrants for longer periods. Most of 
     the actual text comes from section 3705 of the Senate 
     comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 744) passed in June 
     2013, but the Kate's Law authors have added several odious 
     provisions. The heart of the bill would create a new 10-year 
     maximum sentence for any person removed or denied entry more 
     than two times who reenters. The current maximum for regular 
     reentry is just 2 years. It would increase the maximum 
     sentences for people who reenter after being convicted of 
     various criminal offenses--including for immigration 
     offenses--to up to 25 years.
       Kate's Law deletes two important provisions from the 5.744 
     language that would have protected from prosecution non-felon 
     juveniles (p. 772-73) and humanitarian groups that provide 
     immigrants caught in deserts or mountains food, water, or 
     transportation to safety, which are sometimes the target of 
     the ``aiding and abetting'' statutes (p. 774). Kate's Law 
     would also prohibit challenging the legality or validity of a 
     prior removal order, which is a common defense in these 
     cases. If the earlier removal was not valid, as in at least 
     one case where a U.S. citizen was deported, it should not be 
     the basis of prosecution.
       Kate's Law also would allow for prosecutions of immigrants 
     who attempt to enter the United States unsuccessfully. Under 
     current judicial interpretation, an alien must be ``free from 
     official restraint''--that is, not in the custody or control 
     of a government official. The 9th Circuit has interpreted to 
     include even chases along the border. Thus, the bill would 
     significantly expand the number of people eligible for 
     prosecution for the criminal reentry statute.


             Kate's Law Would Further Over-Criminalization

       The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated that the original 
     mandatory minimums version of Kate's Law would increase the 
     federal prison population by almost 60,000 in 5 years--a 
     massive 30 percent increase in the total federal prison 
     population. Unfortunately, the House is moving this new 
     version--revealed late last week--without an estimate of 
     either its financial impact or its impact on the federal 
     prison population. But the law would likely completely 
     reverse the recent 5 percent decline in the federal prison 
     population, the first reduction since the 1970s.
       Immigration offenses are already the top reason for a 
     federal arrest, composing half. of all federal criminal 
     arrests up, a share that has doubled since 2004. From 1998 to 
     2010, 56 percent of all federal prison admissions were for 
     immigration crimes. Locking up immigrants requires taxpayers 
     to pay to watch, house, clothe, and feed them, and unlike 
     U.S. citizens who are released into the interior, their 
     incarceration does not prevent other U.S. residents from 
     being exposed their criminal behavior (assuming illegal 
     crossing is a concern in that regard).
       While naturally locking people up has some deterrent effect 
     on future crossing, Border Patrol doesn't bother to keep good 
     data on this impact compared to its other efforts. Given the 
     costs of incarceration--both to the person incarcerated and 
     to the U.S. taxpayer--this seems like a critical insight. In 
     any case, if Congress was serious about discouraging illegal 
     immigration, it would make legal immigration significantly 
     easier. As I have shown, the availability of work permits has 
     a major impact on illegal immigration.
       It's not clear that the motivation for Kate's Law is 
     reducing illegal immigration per se, but rather the belief 
     that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit serious 
     crimes and so should be singled out. Yet as my colleagues' 
     recent paper demonstrates, illegal immigrants are much less 
     likely to end up behind bars than U.S.-born citizens. Because 
     unauthorized immigrants are required to serve sentences 
     before their removal, this is the best indication that they 
     are less likely to commit crimes that require jail time.
       In the end, Kate's Law is an improvement on its prior 
     versions, but still an unjustifiable use of federal 
     resources.

  CWS Statement to Opposing H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals 
                     Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

       As a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 
     Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions and 34 refugee 
     resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service 
     (CWS) urges all Members of Congress to support the long-
     standing efforts of law enforcement officials to foster 
     trusting relationships with the communities they protect and 
     serve. As we pray for peace and an end to senseless acts of 
     violence that are too prevalent in this country, CWS 
     encourages the U.S. Congress to refrain from politicizing 
     tragedies or conflating the actions of one person with an 
     entire community of our immigrant brothers and sisters and 
     oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and 
     H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
       H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would target 
     more than 600+ cities, counties, and states across the 
     country and threaten to take away millions of dollars in 
     federal funding that local police use to promote public 
     safety. Communities are safer when they commit to policies 
     that strengthen trust and cooperation between local law 
     enforcement, community leadership and institutions, and all 
     residents, regardless of immigration status. The Federal 
     government should not hurt intentional, community-based 
     policing efforts that are vital in communities across the 
     country. Many cities have already recognized that requests by 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold individuals 
     beyond their court-appointed sentences violate due process 
     and have been found unconstitutional by federal courts. This 
     bill would raise profound constitutional concerns by 
     prohibiting localities from declining to comply with ICE 
     detainer requests even when such compliance would violate 
     federal court orders and the U.S. Constitution. Local police 
     that refuse ICE detainer requests see an increase in public 
     safety due to improved trust from the community. It is 
     precisely this trust that enables community members to report 
     dangerous situations without the fear of being deported or 
     separated from their families. When local police comply with 
     ICE detainer requests, more crimes go unreported because 
     victims and witnesses are afraid of being deported if they 
     contact the police. This bill would also undermine local 
     criminal prosecutions by allowing the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) to ignore state or local criminal warrants and 
     refuse to transfer individuals to state or local custody in 
     certain circumstances. This bill would reduce community 
     safety by preventing state and local jurisdictions from 
     holding people accountable.
       The United States already spends more than $18 billion on 
     immigration enforcement per year, more than all other federal 
     law enforcement agencies combined. H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, 
     would expand the federal government's ability to prosecute 
     individuals for ``illegal reentry'' and impose even more 
     severe penalties in these cases--even though prosecutions for 
     migration-related offenses already make up more than 50% of 
     all federal prosecutions. Yet, this bill does not include 
     adequate protections for individuals who reenter the U.S. in 
     order to seek protection, which would place asylum seekers at 
     risk of being returned to the violence and persecution they 
     fled. We have seen how Border Patrol's current practices 
     violate existing U.S. law and treaty obligations by 
     preventing viable asylum claims from moving forward. DHS has 
     found that in some areas, Border Patrol refers asylum seekers 
     for criminal prosecution despite the fact that they have 
     expressed fear of persecution. In May 2017, a report was 
     released highlighting that many asylum seekers, who had 
     expressed a fear of returning to their home countries are 
     being turned away by CBP agents. New barriers to protection 
     are unnecessary and would dangerously impede our obligations 
     under international and U.S. law.
       Federal, state, and local policies that focus on 
     deportation do not reduce crime rates. Individuals are being 
     deported who present no risk to public safety and who are 
     long-standing community members, including parents of young 
     children. Immigrants come to this country to reunite with 
     family, work, and make meaningful contributions that enrich 
     their communities. Several studies over the last century have 
     affirmed that all immigrants, regardless of nationality or 
     status, are less likely than U.S. citizens to commit

[[Page 10177]]

     violent crimes. A recent report found a correlation between 
     the increase in undocumented immigrants, and the sharp 
     decline in violent and property crime rates. Immigration is 
     correlated with significantly higher employment growth and a 
     decline in the unemployment rate, and immigrants have high 
     entrepreneurial rates, creating successful businesses that 
     hire immigrant and U.S. citizen employees.
       As communities of faith, we are united by principles of 
     compassion, stewardship, and justice. CWS urges all Members 
     of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for 
     Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. What we need are 
     real solutions and immigration policies that treat our 
     neighbors with the dignity and respect that all people 
     deserve and affirm local law enforcement officers' efforts to 
     build trust with their communities.


                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 3003 (No Sanctuary for Criminals Act) 
         and H.R. 3004 (Kate's Law)
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the American Civil Liberties Union (``ACLU''), we submit this 
     letter to the House of Representatives to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, 
     and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.


               No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003)

       H.R. 3003 conflicts with the principles of the Fourth 
     Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 defies the Fourth Amendment by amending 8 USC 
     Section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'') 
     to force localities to comply with unlawful detainer requests 
     or risk losing federal funding. This is despite the fact that 
     an ``increasing number of federal court decisions'' have held 
     that ``detainer-based detention by state and local law 
     enforcement agencies violates the Fourth Amendment,'' as 
     recognized by former Department of Homeland Security 
     Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2014.
       Disturbingly, H.R. 3003 seeks to penalize the 600+ 
     localities that abide by the Fourth Amendment. These 
     jurisdictions have recognized that by entangling local 
     authorities and federal immigration enforcement, immigration 
     detainers erode trust between immigrant communities and local 
     law enforcement. In this way, immigration detainers 
     ultimately undermine public safety, as entire communities 
     become wary of seeking assistance from police and other 
     government authorities that are supposed to provide help in 
     times of need. Thus, by forcing jurisdictions to comply with 
     unlawful detainer requests, H.R. 3003 will only make 
     communities less safe, not more.
       H.R. 3003 would also amend Section 287 of the INA to allow 
     the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') to take custody 
     of a person being held under a detainer within 48 hours 
     (excluding weekends and holidays) ``but in no instance more 
     than 96 hours'' following the date that the individual would 
     otherwise be released from criminal custody. This, again, 
     raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, as the Supreme 
     Court has stated that the Constitution requires a judicial 
     finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. This 
     provision would disregard the Court's ruling entirely and 
     allow a local law enforcement agency to hold a person for up 
     to 7 days before requiring DHS intervention--and never 
     requiring the person be brought before a judge for a probable 
     cause hearing.
       Protection against unreasonable detention by the government 
     is the bedrock of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which 
     provides that the government cannot hold anyone in jail 
     without getting a warrant or approval from a neutral 
     magistrate. This constitutional protection applies to 
     everyone in the United States--citizen and immigrant alike.
       Immigration detainers, however, do not abide by these 
     standards. Detainers are one of the key tools that DHS uses 
     to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and 
     state law enforcement agencies. An immigration detainer is a 
     written request from DHS to that local law enforcement 
     agency, requesting that they detain an individual for an 
     additional 48 hours after the person's release date, in order 
     to allow immigration agents extra time to decide whether to 
     take that person into custody for deportation purposes.
       DHS's use of detainers to imprison people without due 
     process, without any charges pending, and without probable 
     cause of a criminal violation flies in the face of our Fourth 
     Amendment protections. Policies that allow DHS to detain 
     people at-will are ripe for civil and human rights violations 
     and have resulted in widespread wrongful detentions, 
     including detentions of U.S. citizens. That is why many of 
     the 600+ localities targeted by H.R. 3003 have decided not to 
     execute a DHS immigration detainer request unless it is 
     accompanied by additional evidence, a determination of 
     probable cause, or a judicial warrant.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 3003 does nothing to address the 
     fundamental constitutional problems plaguing DHS's use of 
     immigration detainers. Rather than fix the constitutional 
     problems by requiring a judicial warrant, the bill 
     perpetuates the unconstitutional detainer practices and 
     forces the federal government to absorb legal liability for 
     the constitutional violations which will inevitably result. 
     This is irresponsible lawmaking. Instead of saddling 
     taxpayers with the liability the federal government will 
     incur from Fourth Amendment violations, Congress should end 
     the use of DHS's unconstitutional detainer requests.
       H.R. 3003 violates the Due Process Clause by allowing DHS 
     to detain people indefinitely without a bond hearing.
       Section 4 of H.R. 3003 radically expands our immigration 
     detention system by amending Section 236(c) of the INA to 
     authorize mandatory detention ``without time limitation.'' 
     This empowers DHS to detain countless immigrants for as long 
     as it takes to conclude removal proceedings--even if that 
     takes years--without the basic due process of a bond hearing 
     to determine if their imprisonment is even justified. This is 
     a clear constitutional violation, as the federal courts have 
     overwhelmingly held that jailing immigrants for months and 
     years without bond hearings raises serious problems under the 
     Due Process Clause.
       Although the bill claims to provide for the ``detention of 
     criminal aliens,'' it massively expands mandatory detention 
     to people with no criminal record whatsoever, including 
     immigrants who lack legal papers or who overstay a tourist 
     visa. The ``lock 'em up'' approach to immigration enforcement 
     is cruel, irrational, and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court 
     has permitted brief periods of mandatory detention only in 
     cases where individuals are charged with deportation based on 
     certain criminal convictions. The Court has not endorsed the 
     mandatory lock-up of people who have never committed a crime.


                         Kate's Law (H.R. 3004)

       H.R. 3004 is piecemeal immigration enforcement that expands 
     America's federal prison population and lines the coffers of 
     private prison companies.
       Increasing the maximum sentences for illegal reentrants is 
     unnecessary, wasteful, and inhumane. H.R. 3004 envisions a 
     federal criminal justice system that prosecutes asylum-
     seekers, persons providing humanitarian assistance to 
     migrants in distress, and parents who pose no threat to 
     public safety in returning to the U.S. to reunite with 
     children who need their care (individuals with children in 
     the United States are 50 percent of those convicted of 
     illegal reentry).
       Current law already imposes a sentence of up to 20 years on 
     anyone convicted of illegally reentering the country who has 
     committed an aggravated felony. U.S. Attorneys' Offices 
     aggressively enforce these provisions. According to the U.S. 
     Sentencing Commission, immigration prosecutions account for 
     52 percent of all federal prosecutions--surpassing drugs, 
     weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes. Nearly 99 
     percent of illegal reentry defendants are sentenced to 
     federal prison time.
       H.R. 3004 would drastically expand America's prison 
     population of nonviolent prisoners at a time when there is 
     bipartisan support to reduce the federal prison population. 
     It offends due process by cutting off all collateral attacks 
     on unjust prior deportation orders, despite the Supreme 
     Court's contrary ruling in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez. 
     Profiteering by private prison companies has been the main 
     consequence of border-crossing prosecutions, which the 
     Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of 
     Inspector General have criticized as lacking sound deterrent 
     support.
       H.R. 3004 is an integral part of this administration's mass 
     deportation and mass incarceration agenda. Longer sentences 
     for illegal reentry are not recommended by any informed 
     federal criminal-justice stakeholders; rather they represent 
     this administration's anti-immigrant obsession and would 
     expensively expand substandard private jail contracting 
     despite the life-threatening conditions in these facilities.
       In conclusion, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 are fraught with 
     constitutional problems that threaten the civil and human 
     rights of our immigrant communities, undercut law 
     enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe, and would 
     balloon our federal prison population by financing private 
     prison corporations. Rather than taking a punitive approach 
     to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to 
     balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep 
     their communities safe, Congress should end DHS's 
     unconstitutional detainer practices or fix the constitutional 
     deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer 
     requests. Congress should also repeal mandatory detention so 
     that all immigrants receive the basic due process of a bond 
     hearing and reject any attempt to unfairly imprison 
     individuals who are not a threat to public safety.

[[Page 10178]]

       For more information, please contact ACLU Director of 
     Immigration Policy and Campaigns, Lorella Praeli.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Faiz Shakir,
                                      National Political Director.
                                                   Lorella Praeli,
                     Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu), a former member of the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. This is politically driven legislation 
intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies 
have shown immigrants commit less crimes.
  It enhances criminal penalties against immigrants, the vast majority 
of whom have come here peacefully to rejoin loved ones. All that, and 
it doesn't even do what it claims to, address the situation that led to 
the tragic death of Kate Steinle.
  There are those who might imply that this bill came from H.R. 15, the 
comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill that could have passed the 
House if allowed to vote on the floor, but this is not true. I know, 
because I was one of the lead sponsors of this bill.
  Our bill would have vastly improved the pathways to immigrate legally 
to the U.S. This bill makes no distinction between those immigrants 
trying to rejoin their families and those who may be prone to commit 
crimes.
  Instead, it treats all immigrants attempting to reenter the U.S. as 
criminals and significantly expands sentences for persons with 
misdemeanors such as driving without a license or loitering. Even 
asylum seekers, who present themselves at the border to escape deadly 
gang violence in their home country, could be subject to criminal 
prosecution.
  Turning our backs on asylum seekers and refugees doesn't make us 
safer. It makes us weak, and it is just plain wrong.
  We were horrified by Kate Steinle's murder, but the provisions in 
this bill would not have prevented it. The man charged with killing her 
was convicted for multiple illegal reentry offenses, serving more than 
16 years in prison. He had been caught each time he attempted to cross 
the border. His presence in San Francisco was not due to lax penalties 
for reentry or weak border security.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation ripped from 
the pages of Donald Trump's mass deportation and anti-immigrant 
playbook.
  I include in the Record five documents from organizations that are 
opposed to this bill as well as the sanctuary bill, and that is the 
15,000 immigration lawyers and law professors who are members of the 
American Immigration Lawyers Association; the 1.6 million members of 
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or 
AFSCME; the 2 million members of the Service Employees International 
Union, SEIU; the Asian Americans Advancing Justice; and the Fair 
Immigration Reform Movement.

                                              American Immigration


                                          Lawyers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
     Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association 
         Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 
         3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)
     Contact: Gregory Chen, Director of Government Relations.
       As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration 
     lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers 
     Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' 
     (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends 
     that members of Congress reject these bills which are 
     scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27 
     and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary 
     Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance 
     public safety,'' they will do just the opposite: undermine 
     public safety and make it even harder for local law 
     enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In 
     addition, the bills which were made public less than a week 
     before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary 
     Committee, include provisions that will result in violations 
     of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the 
     Constitution.
       At a time when over 9 out of 10 Americans support 
     immigration reform and legalization of the undocumented, 
     Republican leadership is asking the House to vote on 
     enforcement-only bills that will lead to more apprehensions, 
     deportations, and prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and 
     their families who have strong ties to the United States. 
     Instead of criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, 
     Congress should be offering workable reforms that will 
     strengthen our economy and our country.


             The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

       H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with 
     local policing.
       H.R. 3003 would amend 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prevent states 
     or localities from establishing laws or policies that 
     prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or 
     cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The bill 
     dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more 
     narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from 
     restricting the sharing and exchange of information with 
     federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's 
     citizenship or immigration status.
       Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad 
     wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to 
     enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure 
     victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The 
     bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS 
     from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed 
     ``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local 
     law enforcement has a final order of removal.
       Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with 
     federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of 
     federal funding for critical law enforcement, national 
     security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives, 
     including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
     (SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and 
     Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of 
     dollars to localities nationwide.
       In an effort to force localities to engage in civil 
     immigration enforcement efforts, including those against 
     nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it 
     far more difficult for many localities, including large 
     cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous 
     criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of 
     immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated 
     sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from 
     the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.
       H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in 
     the Fourth Amendment.
       By prohibiting localities from restricting or limiting 
     their own cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, 
     H.R. 3003 effectively compels localities to honor ICE 
     detainer requests--a controversial and constitutionally 
     suspect practice that is nonetheless widely-used by ICE. 
     Federal courts have found that ICE use of detainers violates 
     the Fourth Amendment, and that localities may be held liable 
     for honoring them.
       The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing 
     that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold 
     undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is 
     currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown. 
     Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue 
     detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral 
     magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in 
     the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral 
     magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive 
     provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose 
     between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or 
     being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''
       Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and 
     private contractors with immunity if they are sued for 
     violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer 
     the financial burden of litigation by substituting the 
     federal government for the local officers as the defendant. 
     If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck 
     paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly 
     detained.
       The bill goes even further by creating a private right of 
     action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue 
     localities if the crime was committed by someone who was 
     released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer 
     request.
       H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 would compel states and localities to utilize 
     their local law enforcement resources to implement federal 
     civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth 
     Amendment's ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment 
     does not permit the federal government to force counties and 
     cities to allocate local resources, including police 
     officers, technology, and personnel, to enforce federal 
     immigration law. The federal government also cannot withhold 
     funds from localities refusing to participate in federal 
     efforts if the programs affected are unrelated to the purpose 
     of the federal program, or if the sanctions are punitive in 
     nature.
       H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process.
       H.R. 3003 would increase the use of detention without 
     ensuring those detained have access to a bond determination. 
     Under the bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including 
     those who have overstayed their visa

[[Page 10179]]

     would be subject to detention without a custody hearing. The 
     bill also establishes that DHS has the authority to detain 
     individuals ``without time limitation'' during the pendency 
     of removal proceedings. These provisions would dramatically 
     expand the federal government's power to indefinitely detain 
     individuals, and would likely result in ever growing numbers 
     of undocumented immigrants held in substandard detention 
     facilities.


                         Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

       H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in 
     federal law for illegal reentry (INA Sec. 276; 8 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1326). The number of people prosecuted for illegal 
     reentry has grown steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each 
     year, and such cases comprise more than one quarter of all 
     federal criminal prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds 
     sentencing enhancements for people who are convicted of minor 
     misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but 
     have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve 
     public safety and will undermine due process and protections 
     for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer 
     funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of 
     people who pose no threat to the community and who have 
     strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their 
     loved ones.
       H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon 
     people with minor offenses.
       H.R. 3004 would add sentencing enhancements for minor 
     misdemeanor convictions, including driving without a license 
     and other traffic-related offenses. Under the current version 
     of INA Sec. 276, if a person is charged with reentering the 
     U.S. after being removed, their punishment is enhanced by up 
     to ten years only if they have been convicted a felony or 
     three or more misdemeanors involving drugs or violence. Under 
     H.R. 3004 someone who has been convicted of any three 
     misdemeanors regardless of severity would be subject to a 
     term of up to ten years.
       This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of 
     people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are 
     trying to reunite with family members and have other strong 
     ties to the United States. Currently half of all people 
     convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the 
     country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also 
     waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock 
     up non-violent people.
       H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at 
     the border.
       H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA Sec. 276 to punish 
     not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to reenter 
     the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to cross the 
     border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the border'' to 
     mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, regardless of 
     whether the alien is free from official restraint.'' That 
     means that people who present themselves at ports of entry to 
     request asylum and are taken into custody by CBP to await a 
     fear screening would be subject to criminal charges based on 
     a past removal, even though they are seeking refuge in the 
     U.S.
       H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for 
     people with multiple entries.
       The bill would also create new sentencing enhancements for 
     people who have reentered the U.S. multiple times, even if 
     they have no other criminal convictions. If someone has been 
     removed three or more times, and is found in the United 
     States or attempts to cross the border again, H.R. 3004 law 
     would provide for sentencing enhancements of up to ten years. 
     The bill makes no exception for bona fide asylum seekers, 
     which means that people who are seeking refuge in the U.S. 
     from atrocities abroad could be subject to a lengthy prison 
     sentence under these provisions.
       H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking 
     challenges to unfair removal orders.
       The bill will prevent an individual from challenging the 
     validity of a removal order, even it was fundamentally unfair 
     in the first place. The Supreme Court held in U.S. v. 
     Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 (1987) that due process requires 
     that a challenge be allowed if a deportation proceeding is 
     used as an element of a criminal offense and where the 
     proceeding ``effectively eliminate[d] the right of the alien 
     to obtain judicial review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is 
     likely unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to 
     defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without 
     the opportunity to seek asylum.
                                  ____



                                                       AFSCME,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the punitive and 
     unnecessary No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and 
     its companion bill that increases penalties for certain 
     immigrants (H.R. 3004). These bills together weaken the 
     rights of immigrants, cut funding to vital state and local 
     programs, and further criminalize immigrants.
       H.R. 3003 and 3004 are deeply flawed pieces of legislation 
     that would add chaos to an already broken immigration system 
     when comprehensive reform is what is needed. The bills 
     undermine state and local policing strategies that have 
     worked well for many communities. Implementing this ``one 
     size fits all'' approach, as proposed in these bills, 
     jeopardizes the trust that diverse communities have placed in 
     their police force and undermines federal grants that are 
     aimed at helping law enforcement and that support the very 
     programs needed to reduce crime.
       H.R. 3003 forces communities to devote local resources to 
     enforcing federal immigration law and penalizes them if they 
     don't comply. H.R. 3004 mandates increased penalties on 
     immigrants for reentry, which could lead to a large increase 
     in the prison population without additional resources. This 
     would create new financial liability for federal, state, and 
     local governments, that are already cash strapped, at a time 
     when funding is urgently needed for investments in public 
     safety, infrastructure and other vital community needs.
       We urge the House to reject both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Scott Frey,

     Director of Federal Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                         SEIU,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members 
     of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), I urge 
     you to vote no on H.R. 3004 and H.R. 3003, which are 
     currently scheduled to come to the House floor this week. 
     These mean-spirited and unwise bills would waste taxpayer 
     dollars, shackle local law enforcement efforts to protect the 
     public, and make our nation's immigration laws even meaner 
     and less reasonable than they already are.
       H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' would increase the prison 
     population of nonviolent offenders who pose no public safety 
     risk, without evidence that its harsh provisions would have 
     any impact on unlawful immigration, and without any other 
     justification of its cost or impact on prison overcrowding. 
     Those affected would include immigrants who have only 
     committed minor misdemeanors such as driving without a 
     license or other traffic-related offenses, and others who 
     have never committed any crimes besides unauthorized entry. 
     H.R. 3004 would also penalize persons fleeing persecution who 
     voluntarily present themselves at the border to apply for 
     asylum, and it would short circuit the current minimal due 
     process protections that protect persons whose previous 
     deportation was unlawful.
       H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' is 
     intended to commandeer state and local law enforcement 
     resources to perform federal deportation activities. It is 
     one part of the ongoing effort to villainize immigrants by 
     unfairly--and against all available evidence--painting them 
     all with a criminal brush for the misdeeds of a few. Rather 
     than protecting the public, the provisions of H.R. 3003 would 
     frustrate policies by states and localities that increase 
     public safety by encouraging cooperation between law 
     enforcement and the communities they serve. There is mounting 
     evidence that localities with such policies experience lower 
     crime because they build trust between the police and those 
     they serve, thereby inspiring the community collaboration and 
     assistance that is a key ingredient to maintaining safe 
     neighborhoods.
       It should be pointed out that the provisions of H.R. 3003 
     are sufficiently radical that even those who do not support 
     sanctuary cities should vote no. The bill would deny 
     important law enforcement funding to localities that are 
     unwilling to honor any and all federal immigration detainer 
     requests, including requests that courts have said are 
     unconstitutional. It would empower private individuals to sue 
     a locality if they or their family are victimized by a crime 
     committed by an individual who was released despite a federal 
     detainer request. It would render local governments powerless 
     to prioritize local needs over immigration enforcement, even 
     for local agencies funded by local taxes. And, if that 
     weren't enough, a separate provision would significantly 
     increase the categories of individuals subject to mandatory 
     detention and prolonged detention without bond, thereby 
     filling local jails and private prisons with individuals who 
     pose no danger to themselves and no flight risk.
       For the reasons listed above, both of these bills should be 
     defeated. SEIU therefore asks you to vote no, and may add 
     votes on any of them to our scorecard. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Josh Bernstein.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Rocio Saenz,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                   Asian Americans


                                            Advancing Justice,

                                                    June 28, 2017.

 Five Civil Rights Organizations Oppose Latest Immigration Actions in 
                               the House


 house republicans introduce two anti-immigrant bills during immigrant 
                             heritage month

       Washington, DC.--Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) 
     introduced a set of anti-

[[Page 10180]]

     immigrant bills that are scheduled for a vote later this 
     week. These are the latest in a line of bills that outline a 
     clear anti-immigrant strategy by House leadership and this 
     administration.
       H.R. 3003 seeks to authorize the Federal Government to 
     withhold millions of dollars in federal funding for 
     localities with limited detainer policies, sanctuary city 
     policies, and community trust policies aimed at complying 
     with the Constitution and making communities safer. H.R. 3004 
     would expand the Federal Government's ability to prosecute 
     people for illegal reentry into the U.S., excludes 
     humanitarian exemptions for people fleeing violence, and 
     heightens penalties in those cases.
       Asian Americans Advancing Justice, an affiliation of five 
     civil rights organizations, issues the following statement in 
     response:
       ``Asian Americans Advancing Justice strongly opposes H.R. 
     3003 (the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act), H.R. 3004 (known 
     as Kate's Law), and the passage of any immigration 
     enforcement legislation that would increase indiscriminate 
     enforcement, further the criminalization of immigrants, and 
     instill more fear in already terrified communities. 
     Approximately 40 percent of all immigrants come to the U.S. 
     from Asia, and 1.6 million of those immigrants are 
     undocumented. Anti-immigrant policies create a climate of 
     fear for all immigrants, regardless of status.
       We are horrified and dismayed that House leadership has 
     chosen to line up behind the administration in its 
     scapegoating of immigrants. Both of these bills further the 
     administration's goals of criminalizing all immigrants and 
     expanding mass incarceration. Since the administration failed 
     in its attempt to strip funding from municipalities with 
     sanctuary and community trust policies in federal court, it 
     is looking for Congress to fulfill its anti-immigrant agenda.
       There is abundant evidence that sanctuary and community 
     trust policies make communities safer. As Arizona and Texas 
     have shown us, forcing local law enforcement to enforce 
     immigration laws increases racial profiling and distrust of 
     law enforcement by communities of color.
       Rapidly pushing these bills through the House as America 
     looks toward a holiday that celebrates the best of our 
     American ideals is clearly an effort to slide this 
     legislation under the radar of anyone who would oppose it, 
     including millions of Americans who support immigrants' 
     rights.
       Vilifying and punishing immigrants who may be fleeing 
     violence or seeking a better life for their families does not 
     makes us safer, just inhumane. We call on Congress to reject 
     this latest anti-immigrant strategy. This vote will be a test 
     for Members of Congress to show which side of justice they 
     are on.''
       Asian Americans Advancing Justice is a national affiliation 
     of five leading organizations advocating for the civil and 
     human rights of Asian Americans and other underserved 
     communities to promote a fair and equitable society for all. 
     The affiliation's members are: Advancing Justice/AAJC 
     (Washington, DC), Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus (San 
     Francisco), Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, Advancing Justice-
     Atlanta, and Advancing Justice-Chicago.
                                  ____

                                                  Fair Immigration


                                              Reform Movement,

                                                    June 29, 2017.

          House GOP Continues Cruel Crusade Against Immigrants

       Washington.--Kica Matos, spokesperson for the Fair 
     Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), issued the statement 
     below after the House voted on the No Sanctuary for Criminals 
     Act and Kate's Law:
       ``Republicans in the House are hell bent on criminalizing 
     the hard working immigrants who contribute so much to our 
     country. This week they voted on two heartless bills that do 
     nothing more than continue to fuel Trump's deportation 
     machine.
       The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act punishes ``sanctuary 
     cities,'' local jurisdictions addressing immigration issues 
     without federal interference, and expands the government's 
     inhumane practice of indefinite detention of immigrants.
       The second bill, ``Kate's Law'' is a thinly veiled attempt 
     to give prosecutors more power to continue the vicious mass 
     incarceration of black and brown people by expanding on legal 
     penalties for re-entry. The bill also limits the already 
     limited protections for people reentering the country for 
     humanitarian reasons.
       The attacks on brown and black people by Republicans are 
     not going unnoticed. The people are on our side--they marched 
     with us on May 1st, they showed up after Trump issued the 
     first refugee ban and they called out elected officials at 
     town halls. Our message to Congress is clear: the only 
     solution to fix the broken immigration system is a pathway to 
     citizenship.
       These two bills are the antithesis of our values and should 
     be condemned by everyone.
       The Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) is the nation's 
     largest immigrant-rights coalition, with grassroots 
     organizations fighting for immigrant rights at the local, 
     state and federal level.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bergman).
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and his committee for 
their diligent work on this extremely important and timely law.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. Our 
immigration system here in the United States is the most generous in 
the world. Good people from all over the globe who understand the 
American Dream seek to join us, and we are better for it.
  Alexander Hamilton, Levi Strauss, Albert Einstein, and so many others 
have called themselves Americans because of it. But as we continue to 
draw on that spirit of understanding and acceptance, we have to 
remember that a nation without borders is not a nation.
  We have a responsibility here in Congress to be proactive and protect 
our communities and our citizens from unlawful and criminal immigrants, 
and that is what this legislation does.
  Kate's Law, named in honor of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot 
and killed in the prime of her life by an unlawful immigrant who had 
accumulated seven felony convictions, been deported five different 
times--you have heard this many times said--aims to strengthen public 
safety by imposing hasher mandatory prison sentences for deported 
felons who return to the U.S. and increasing penalties for unlawful 
immigrants who have been convicted of nonimmigration-related crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation just makes sense, and I am confident 
that we can continue to welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses 
yearning to breathe free in our country without giving free rein to 
dangerous convicted criminals in any of our communities.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, for almost 100 percent of the people who 
would go to jail if this bill is enacted, they are not criminals and 
have no brush with the law. They were people who lived here for years, 
who had no chance of coming legally in the first place, and no way to 
get legal once they were here. Most have lived here for 10, 20, 30 
years. They live in families with children, and their children are 
citizens of the United States just like you and me and our children. 
They have mortgages and car notes.
  The problems these moms and dads are trying to solve is if they get 
deported, how do I make sure my kids are safe in the country in which 
they were born, the United States? How do I keep a roof over their head 
and get them ready for school? How do I keep my business open or my 
career continuing in the U.S. where I have lived, in some cases, for 
decades?
  That is the problem they have, and guess what, they come back after 
they are deported. That person, to me, is not a felon, never committed 
a crime. That person is not a hardened criminal, never killed anyone.

                              {time}  1615

  That is a parent fighting for their family.
  So in painting a picture of all immigrants as resembling a career 
criminal, like the guy who killed Kate Steinle, Republicans are doing 
the old bait and switch.
  The people we are hitting with this bill come back to the lives they 
have built over decades by the only means we have made available, and 
now we are going to add a felony and 15 years to that.
  Let's give moms and dads different alternatives. The people who would 
go to jail if this bill were enacted would rather have come with a 
visa. They would get in line for hours to get legal if there were a 
line to get in, but there isn't, and most Americans believe we should 
create such a line for them. They would come back legally if they 
could, but they can't.
  We should be looking at how to solve that problem. We should be 
looking at ways to eliminate illegal immigration, and stop hoping that 
our strategy of the last 30 years of deportation, more restriction, and 
more criminalization would somehow miraculously start working.
  It hasn't. It won't. It is time for us to enact comprehensive 
immigration reform in the Congress and to fulfill our responsibility to 
the Nation.

[[Page 10181]]

  Look, the question today isn't whether or not this bill is going to 
pass. It is going to pass. The Republicans are making it a primary 
purpose.
  The question really, for me, is: Are Democrats going to participate? 
Are Democrats going to participate in allowing this to pass?
  I have just got to say that I know it is difficult.
  Some people say: Well, I might not come back.
  It will be difficult. My constituents demand this.
  Well, let me just say that when I was elected in 1986 to the Chicago 
City Council, I was there but a month and they had the human rights 
bill for the gay and lesbian community. I remember the banner 
headlines: ``Cardinal Says `No.'''
  Here I was a Catholic all my life, an altar boy, had three of the 
seven Catholic rites: communion, baptism, and marriage. Ten years 
later, I got to the Congress and was confronted here with the Defense 
of Marriage Act. We passed it. There were only about 70 of us who voted 
against it.
  But guess what. Thirty years after I took that vote for gay rights in 
the Chicago City Council, the Supreme Court said that marriage equality 
was the law of the land and discriminating against them was against the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  That is the way you create social justice, not by doing a poll and 
not by trying to figure out what the next election consequences are 
going to be.
  I say to my Democratic colleagues: Stand up for social justice today.
  It wasn't easy as a Democrat to stand up for reproductive rights for 
women. I remember going to church and I remember being chastised by the 
priest. I remember being booed by some of the congregants as I left 
that church. But I stood up for what I believe are women's rights. My 
children were chased down the street during Halloween by pro-choice 
people who said I didn't deserve to be trick-or-treating with my 
children, that I was a bad father and I was a murderer. We stood up, 
and women have rights in this country.
  That is the way we do that, Democrats. We stand up for what is right. 
We don't take a poll, and we don't think of the next election. We do 
what is right.
  The immigrant community is looking for champions today, and it is my 
hope that, as Democrats, we, too, will stand up. When hate visits you, 
you need to repudiate it. You need to repudiate it because that hate 
might visit you in some personal way and it might cause you to hate 
yourself ultimately.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement in opposition to the 
bill from the Tahirih Justice Center.

                                       Tahirih Justice Center,

                                  Falls Church, VA, June 27, 2017.

                Statement of the Tahirih Justice Center


    Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and 
                       ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004)

       The Tahirih Justice Center (``Tahirih'') respectfully 
     submits this statement to the United States House of 
     Representatives as it considers ``The No Sanctuary for 
     Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003; ``The Act'') and ``Kate's Law'' 
     (H.R. 3004). The House Rules Committee is set to review these 
     bills today, followed by the full House in the near future. 
     Tahirih is a national, nonpartisan organization that has 
     assisted over 20,000 immigrant survivors of gender-based 
     violence over the past 20 years. Our clients include women 
     and girls who have endured horrific abuses such as rape and 
     human trafficking and are in dire need of humanitarian 
     relief.
       Tahirih urges members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003 and 
     3004: By further entangling federal and local immigration 
     enforcement, H.R. 3003 will not only put survivors of human 
     trafficking and domestic violence at greater risk of criminal 
     harm, but will embolden violent criminals who pose a danger 
     to us all. H.R. 3004 will unjustly punish asylum seekers who 
     sought safe haven in the U.S., but were improperly denied 
     access to the asylum process the first time around.
       H.R. 3003: The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act: The Act 
     seeks to erase the distinction between federal and local 
     immigration enforcement. Such measures erode immigrant 
     community trust of police, who rely on victims and witnesses 
     to help get dangerous criminals off the streets. When 
     immigrants know they can call 911 without fear of 
     deportation, it is perpetrators--not victims or their 
     children--that are deterred and punished. Abusers and 
     traffickers deliberately manipulate and isolate victims to 
     limit their access to information about their legal rights. 
     Despite longstanding protections under the Violence Against 
     Women Act, even victims who hold lawful immigration status 
     succumb to intimidation, and remain afraid of deportation if 
     they come forward. For some survivors, deportation means 
     sentencing a US citizen child to the custody of a violent 
     abuser. Following the recent passage of a state law to 
     increase local immigration enforcement, a client aptly noted, 
     ``This is exactly what [my abuser] has been waiting for.'' We 
     are all less safe when we make it easier for perpetrators to 
     commit crimes.
       The Act will also increase prolonged detention of 
     survivors, resulting in further traumatization, separation 
     from young children, and limited access to legal assistance 
     and due process. The Act also punishes localities that refuse 
     to comply, by revoking critical funding for core programs 
     that address gun violence, gang violence, and other criminal 
     activity. When local agencies must ``choose'' between 
     continuing these programs and compromising community trust, 
     it is the public that pays the steepest price.
       H.R. 3004: Kate's Law: Tahirih and other advocates 
     routinely assist clients whose initial requests for asylum at 
     the border are met with hostility, intimidation, and 
     coercion. These individuals are unlawfully denied access to 
     the asylum process by U.S. officials. With their lives in 
     grave danger, women and girls in this situation have no 
     choice but to request safe haven in the U.S. a second or even 
     third time. They are not asking to appeal denial of their 
     claims; rather, they are merely seeking a threshold 
     determination that they may apply for asylum or related 
     protections. Our domestic laws and international humanitarian 
     obligations require that they have this opportunity. H.R. 
     3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse who persist in 
     their quest for asylum by limiting their ability to challenge 
     initial, unlawful removals, and by unnecessarily and unjustly 
     subjecting them to criminal prosecution.
       We appreciate the opportunity to offer this statement in 
     opposition to H.R. 3003 and 3004, and we urge Congress to 
     unequivocally reject these harmful bills that undermine the 
     safety of survivors of gender-based violence.
                                                      Archi Pyati,
                                  Director of Policy and Programs.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Human Rights First: American Ideals. Universal Values.

                                           Human Rights First,

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Re H.R. 3004--115th Congress (2017-2018).

     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: We write to urge you to oppose H.R. 
     3004 (``Kate's Law'') and any similar legislation that would 
     have severely negative consequences for asylum seekers and 
     refugees fleeing persecution.
       H.R. 3004 seeks to expand the scope of immigrants who may 
     be prosecuted for unlawful reentry and further expands 
     penalties for those who are convicted. But the criminal 
     prosecution of asylum seekers for offenses such as illegal 
     entry, illegal reentry, and document fraud violates U.S. 
     treaty obligations and risks sending genuine refugees back to 
     their countries of persecution.
       For one, many asylum seekers are forced to ``reenter'' the 
     United States because they were wrongfully deported in the 
     first place through the expedited removal system. The U.S. 
     Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), as 
     well as Human Rights First and other groups, has long 
     documented deficiencies and flaws in the implementation of 
     the expedited removal process, a summary process which gives 
     immigration officers the authority to order non-citizens 
     deported without a hearing. In its 2005 report on expedited 
     removal, USCIRF found that in a significant number of cases, 
     border agents failed to follow U.S. law and refer asylum 
     seekers to the ``credible fear'' process, even when USCIRF 
     researchers were present during the secondary inspection 
     process.
       Even when border agents make the proper referral for a 
     credible fear screening, asylum seekers are often traumatized 
     and exhausted by their experiences in their home countries, 
     their flight to the United States, and their arrest by U.S. 
     authorities. They are often interviewed by telephone by an 
     officer they cannot see and are at the mercy of 
     interpretation problems and other arbitrary factors that 
     hinder communication. As a result, some may incorrectly be 
     found to not have a credible fear, and may be deported as a 
     result. These asylum seekers must then ``reenter'' the United 
     States after facing continuing persecution in their home 
     countries to seek protection yet again.
       Moreover, H.R. 3004 would redefine ``reentry'' to encompass 
     an even broader group of individuals, as it will define 
     reentry as including cases of individuals who had been 
     previously denied admission. Human Rights First release a 
     report in May 2017, titled Crossing the Line, which documents 
     cases of

[[Page 10182]]

     asylum seekers who have been turned back at U.S. ports of 
     entry, despite stating to border agents that they had a fear 
     of persecution or intended to seek asylum. While DHS 
     officials have acknowledged that border agents should be 
     following U.S. law and referring asylum seekers to the asylum 
     process, Human Rights First and other groups have found that 
     this practice continues. H.R. 3004 seeks to penalize an 
     overly broad group of individuals that would even include 
     those who were wrongfully turned away from our ports of entry 
     in violation of U.S. law.
       Secondly, prosecuting asylum seekers for their illegal 
     entry or presence--even in the case of ``reentry''--is a 
     violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention and 
     Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31 of 
     the Refugee Convention requires that states refrain from 
     imposing ``penalties'' on refugees on account of their 
     illegal entry or presence in the country where they are 
     seeking asylum. For this reason, in 2015, the U.S. Department 
     of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that 
     prosecutions under ``Operation Streamline'' may place the 
     United States in violation of its treaty obligations.
       If Congress passes H.R. 3004, more asylum seekers like 
     Maria will be subjected to wrongful criminal prosecutions.
       ``Maria,'' a transgender woman from Honduras, who had been 
     raped and subjected to other sexual violence, fled to the 
     United States in 2014. U.S. immigration officials failed to 
     respond to her requests for asylum and she was deported back 
     to Honduras through expedited removal without ever seeing an 
     immigration judge or having her fear of persecution assessed 
     by an asylum officer. Facing ongoing persecution in Honduras, 
     she fled to the United States again in 2015, and was 
     apprehended upon entry. U.S. border agents referred her for 
     criminal prosecution and she was convicted of illegal 
     reentry. After she was transferred back to immigration 
     custody, she was determined to be a ``refugee'' who qualified 
     for withholding of removal. Yet, the United States had 
     already penalized her for ``illegal entry'' despite being a 
     refugee.
       Please contact Olga Byrne at Human Rights First if you have 
     any questions regarding this letter. Thank you for your time 
     and consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Eleanor Acer,
                              Senior Director, Refugee Protection.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing 
the bill from Cities for Action.

                                            Cities for Action,

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a 
     coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that 
     advocates for policies to promote the well-being of our 
     foreign born residents. Our coalition, representing over 50 
     million residents, has a considerable interest in protecting 
     all our residents and ensuring that immigrants are not 
     unjustly criminalized. We are writing to you today to urge 
     that you oppose Representative Goodlatte's bill, H.R. 3004, 
     Kate's Law.
       Kate's Law expands already tough penalties for illegal 
     reentry and allows the government to detain immigrants 
     indefinitely without bond or a court hearing. It also 
     mistakenly implies that illegal reentry cases are under-
     enforced. Indeed, illegal reentry prosecutions already 
     account for 52 percent of all federal prosecutions. H.R. 3004 
     would make the criminal sentences for reentry extremely 
     harsh. Additionally, it would impose severe sentencing 
     enhancements on people with minor offenses who reenter the 
     country.
       H.R. 3004 would also limit the ability to challenge the 
     validity of any prior removal order that forms the basis for 
     a prosecution for illegal reentry, subjecting people to 
     prosecution even in cases where the prior order was issued 
     without due process or was otherwise flawed. In addition, the 
     bill does not provide adequate protections for people who 
     reenter the United States for humanitarian reasons or those 
     who seek protection at the border, putting asylum seekers and 
     families at risk.
       Cities and counties are opposed to this bill because these 
     measures do not improve public safety and it is based on a 
     false premise that immigrants pose a threat to our 
     communities. Local governments have a strong interest in 
     protecting all residents and maintaining public safety. 
     Therefore, we urge you to oppose Kate's Law and stop its 
     passage into law at every possible turn.
       Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
                                                Cities for Action.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing 
the bill from the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Conference of 
Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Charities USA.

                                                    June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on 
     Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
     COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
       The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare 
     of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our 
     parishes include those with and without immigration status, 
     unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of 
     crime in the United States, including domestic violence, 
     armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of 
     fostering cooperation and information-sharing between 
     immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
       We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on 
     local governments that we fear--and that many of them have 
     warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law 
     enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local 
     law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure 
     public safety in all communities.
       Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to 
     jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law 
     enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and 
     naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
     compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network, 
     including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the 
     federal government on a number of Department of Justice and 
     Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including 
     disaster response and recovery, naturalization and 
     citizenship services, and services for the immigrant, 
     including victims of human trafficking, and domestic 
     violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the 
     protection and promotion of the human person and in some 
     instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these 
     important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not 
     humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
       Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion 
     of incarceration and does not include adequate protections 
     for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or 
     seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable 
     efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent 
     criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal 
     by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal 
     re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in 
     these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that 
     important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to 
     prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent 
     crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry 
     or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does 
     not advance the common good nor will it ensure that 
     communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as 
     introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum 
     seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented 
     themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from 
     violence), from being able to access protection, and instead 
     face fines, imprisonment or both.
       We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of 
     a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration 
     reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family 
     unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs 
     and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and 
     security.
       The United States has a long and proud history of 
     leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their 
     circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready 
     to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to 
     this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of 
     our views in this regard.
           Sincerely,
     Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,
       Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
     Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD,
       President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing 
the bill from Friends Committee on National Legislation: A Quaker Lobby 
in the Public Interest.

                                              Friends Committee on


                                         National Legislation,

                                                    June 27, 2017.

 Friends Committee on National Legislation Statement in Opposition to 
  the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R. 
                                 3004)

       The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) is a 
     Quaker lobby in the public interest committed to pursuing 
     policies that build just societies, peaceful communities, and 
     equitable relationships among all people. FCNL looks to 
     Congress to legislate on immigration in a manner that honors 
     the value of immigrants and American citizens alike and urges 
     congressional representatives to reject any legislation which 
     would undermine immigrant families and communities. Congress 
     is tasked with creating lasting solutions for our nation. 
     FCNL therefore urges members of Congress to oppose H.R.

[[Page 10183]]

     3003 and H.R. 3004 which together further criminalize 
     immigrants, expand detention, undermine community well-being, 
     and offer no legislative remedy for a punitive and outdated 
     immigration system.
       H.R. 3003 is an extreme interior enforcement proposal that 
     would affect over 600 cities, counties, and states and raises 
     serious fourth and tenth amendment concerns. Effective 
     policing depends on building authentic trust between police 
     officers and the communities they serve; blurring the lines 
     between federal immigration enforcement and local police 
     results in fewer reported crimes and makes communities with 
     large immigrant populations more vulnerable. Perpetrators of 
     crime, assault, and abuse know that these communities are 
     less likely to report the crime if they legitimately fear it 
     will result in the deportation or detention of an immigrant 
     neighbor, a loved one, or themselves. Law enforcement 
     officials and advocates for survivors of domestic violence 
     agree that the proposals included in this bill would be 
     damaging for the communities they serve. FCNL heeds this call 
     to ensure safety for the most vulnerable among us, and urges 
     members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003.
       H.R. 3004 would expand grounds for indefinite detention and 
     decrease legal opportunities for certain migrants challenging 
     their removal. Our call as Quakers to welcome the stranger 
     does not rest on the legal status of any individual. 
     Criminalizing entire immigrant communities based on the 
     senseless actions of a few individuals tears at the moral 
     fabric of our society and will not make our communities 
     safer. H.R. 3004 could prevent migrants from adequately 
     accessing asylum and would increase family hardship through 
     separation by offering no meaningful opportunity for family 
     members to pursue a legal route when seeking reunification 
     across borders. These provisions will only fuel the 
     brokenness of our system, which is already heavy-handed on 
     indefinite detention and dangerous deportations at great 
     expense to U.S. taxpayers and our collective moral 
     conscience. Thousands of faith leaders have urged members of 
     Congress to reject similar proposals in the past and live up 
     to our call to minister to all those in need, especially 
     those who have been marginalized. In keeping, FCNL urges 
     members of Congress to oppose H.R. 3004.
       FCNL looks instead for legislation that proceeds from a 
     recognition of the inherent worth of all individuals, as 
     acknowledged in our Quaker faith, as well as in our shared 
     Constitution, laws, and American values. We call on Congress 
     to reform the U.S. immigration system so that it is in line 
     with the Quaker principle to answer to that of God in 
     everyone and ensures we live up to our legacy as a country 
     that thrives because we are a nation of diverse peoples and 
     immigrants. Congress has the opportunity to enact practical 
     solutions for comprehensive reform that includes clear and 
     workable processes for legal entry and eventual citizenship. 
     FCNL is eager to partner on such efforts, and seek the 
     fundamental policy changes we need to help U.S. communities 
     truly prosper.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing 
the bill from the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

                                                    June 27, 2017.
       Dear Representative Conyers: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic 
     Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' 
     (H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of 
     Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a 
     county that prides itself on being the land of welcome and 
     opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect 
     our shared values.
       As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration 
     reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million 
     undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an 
     enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps 
     people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress, 
     localities across the country still have the responsibility 
     to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill 
     this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual 
     trust to root out crime and promote public safety, 
     encouraging community members to cooperate with local 
     authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 
     3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will 
     make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the 
     hearts of our immigrant families.
       Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize 
     immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the 
     United States, and often are simply trying to be reunited 
     with their family. Punishing immigrants for wanting to 
     provide for their families with fines and imprisonment is 
     harsh and cruel--we, as a nation, are called to be better 
     than that. Again, we ask Congress to abandon the 
     ``enforcement first'' policies that have been the de facto 
     U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, yielding too many 
     costs and too few results. Our antiquated system that does 
     not accommodate the migration realities we face in our nation 
     today does not serve our national interests and does not 
     respect the basic human rights of migrants who come to this 
     nation fleeing persecution or in search of employment for 
     themselves and better living conditions for their children.
       Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not 
     pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political 
     leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for 
     international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity 
     and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over 
     fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all 
     individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor 
     and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that 
     further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to 
     immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of 
     refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that 
     we, as Americans, strive to uphold.
           Sincerely,

                                     Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS,

                                 Executive Director, NETWORK Lobby
                                      for Catholic Social Justice.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, the previous administration's biggest 
homeland security failures were the lack of prosecution and enforcement 
for crimes committed by illegal immigrants. For far too long, the Obama 
administration failed to adequately punish illegal immigrants who 
committed felonies in the United States.
  A simple deportation is not enough. The United States must prosecute 
and sentence all individuals who commit crimes and hurt Americans.
  When we enforce the law, we create a deterrent mechanism for future 
bad behavior. Failure to enforce the law is a failure to the American 
people. That is why I support Kate's Law.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his strong work and leadership on this 
issue for the safety and security of the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Walker).
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for yielding. I 
appreciate his boldness in protecting the citizens of America with 
great legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, when the father of Kate Steinle, Jim, testified before 
Congress, he said: ``Everywhere Kate went throughout the world, she 
shined the light of a good citizen from the United States of America. 
Unfortunately, due to unjointed laws and basic incompetence of the 
government, the United States has suffered a self-inflicted wound in 
the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should have 
never been on the streets in this country.''
  Well, today we can resolve that.
  Two years ago this weekend, Kate's life was ended when she was gunned 
down by a five-time deported criminal illegal alien with seven prior 
felony convictions.
  Kate's Law would stiffen penalties, helping to stop these preventable 
tragedies.
  Additionally, today the House will pass the No Sanctuary for 
Criminals Act as well.
  You just heard: Will Democrats participate?
  Well, 80 percent of Americans support ending sanctuary cities, and no 
citizen should be in danger because politicians think they are above 
the law.
  So will Democrats participate? Will they listen to their 
constituents?
  Eighty percent of Americans feel pretty good about this law.
  Both pieces of legislation serve the basic functions of our 
government by keeping the people of our States and country safe from 
those who wish to do us harm.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule of law, 
of strengthening the enforcement of our immigration system, and of 
improving the security of our Nation's borders. The safety and security 
of our constituents should be our absolute top priority for this 
Congress.
  Sanctuary cities are a direct threat to our safety. That is why I led 
an effort to defund sanctuary cities through the appropriations 
process, and those

[[Page 10184]]

sanctuary cities and their threat to our safety is why we are here 
today.
  What happened to Kate Steinle was a tragedy. No parent should have to 
go through the anguish of losing their child, especially when it could 
have been avoided.
  Unfortunately, the deadly toll of sanctuary cities is not limited to 
Kate. Last year, in my own community back in Kansas, Master Deputy 
Brandon Collins, a Johnson County sheriff's deputy with nearly 21 years 
of service, was struck and killed by a drunk driver while he was 
performing a routine traffic stop. Deputy Collins was a devoted and 
caring husband, father, son, brother, uncle, and friend whose life was 
tragically cut short.
  The drunk driver, who fled from the scene of the crash, was an 
undocumented or an illegal immigrant who had prior convictions for DUI 
in California in 2001, and was also arrested for driving without a 
license in 2013. He should have never been behind the wheel of that car 
when he killed Deputy Collins.
  Despite his prior offenses, the man was able to remain in the 
country. He was able to be here to commit this crime because of the 
failure to enforce the law, and it ultimately led to Deputy Collins' 
death.
  No nation of laws should tolerate this.
  For these reasons--for Deputy Collins and the many other victims and 
their loved ones dealing with an unspeakable loss--for them, I support 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
me in its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Michigan has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I ask unanimous consent 
that she may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a really tough bill because this is a really 
difficult subject. We mourn the loss of Kate Steinle, and we have an 
obligation to take action to keep our streets safe. But this bill 
doesn't do that.
  Our goal has to be to remove dangerous criminals from our streets so 
that they don't harm people. That has got to be our focus.
  That is why I am so frustrated that we are taking out of a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill--which could have done just 
that--a provision that would have addressed this issue in a more 
rational way; in a way that doesn't go after people seeking asylum; in 
a way that doesn't say, ``If you have been convicted of three 
nonviolent misdemeanors, you go to jail for 10 years;'' and in a way 
that doesn't punish people who are victims of human trafficking who--if 
they spent time in our prisons as a result of what they were forced to 
do, go back to their country, come back seeking asylum--could be forced 
to go to jail. These victims could be forced to go to jail for 20 
years.
  None of that is going to keep our communities safer.
  We ought to work together. I urge my Republican colleagues to work 
with us to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform that will 
include provisions--like what is in this bill--that are still humane, 
provisions that will help keep American citizens safe, but that don't 
demonize immigrants.
  It is possible to do both. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
know that it is possible to do both, and we ought to work together to 
get that done. That is the best way to keep our communities safe and to 
respect our values as Americans.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have only one speaker remaining, and I 
am prepared to close.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think is worth addressing is the 
provision of this bill that changes current law relative to unlawful 
entry or attempted unlawful entry.
  Under 8 U.S.C. 1326, this is a crime if the individual evaded 
detection. This has been the principle in Federal law for more than 100 
years. Since 1908, the Federal courts have recognized that illegal 
entry and illegal reentry require entry free from something called 
official restraint, otherwise known as detention.
  Now, this bill would change that longstanding law. The bill amends 
U.S.C. 1326 to make the physical act of crossing the border a crime for 
any individual who has been previously removed or denied admission 
regardless of whether the individual was ``free from official 
restraint'' when doing so.
  Now, why is this a problem?
  As I mentioned earlier, individuals who, for one reason or another, 
need to come into the United States go to a port of entry, and they ask 
to see the Border Patrol agent. Under this law, that is a crime.
  Now, let me give you some examples of what that would mean. I will 
just talk about the case of Juliza, who was a Guatemalan-Indian woman. 
She faced violent persecution really based on her ethnicity. She was 
raped by family members who referred to her as a dirty Indian as they 
assaulted her. As she went to report this assault to the police, she 
was sexually propositioned by the officers.
  After a family member threatened her with sexual violence and death, 
she fled to the United States. She sought asylum, but she was promptly 
deported--turned away--by the Customs and Border Patrol. Within a month 
of returning to Guatemala, she was drugged, raped, and thrown into a 
river. She fled to the United States for a second time and, once again, 
was turned away without seeing an immigration judge or speaking to an 
asylum officer.
  Finally, the third time she came, her 8-year-old son had been 
threatened by gang members, and she was finally allowed to make her 
case and was granted asylum.

                              {time}  1630

  Or the case of Carla. In June of 2016, Carla, who was from Mexico, 
and her children sought asylum after her father, son, grandfather, and 
uncle were killed in a span of 7 days, targeting her family. She went 
to the border to turn herself in. She was turned away by CBP agents 
twice.
  After the family sought assistance from an attorney, they went back 
to the border, to the port of entry, and the CBP officers finally 
processed them appropriately under American immigration law. This was 
their third attempt. The U.S. immigration judge in Texas ruled that 
they were indeed refugees and granted asylum.
  Now, I raise these two cases because you think deported, if you are 
turned away at the border, it counts for removal under the law. These 
individuals would be felons under this bill.
  Making Juliza and her 8-year-old son or Carla a felon does not save 
an American from crime; it just doesn't. The two are not connected. And 
so to think that this bill, which does such harm to asylum seekers, is 
necessary to save Americans from threats is simply incorrect. It is 
important to stand up for our long-term values in international law.
  There are other ways that one could become a criminal by showing up 
at the border. It is not uncommon that young people who have a valid 
visa issued by a U.S. consulate or Embassy come. They fly into the 
country and they are interviewed by a Customs and Border Patrol agent.
  Now, if that person on the visitor visa is a 20-year-old young man 
who is unmarried, doesn't have a job in the country he is from, doesn't 
own a home, and is from kind of a poor country, it is not all that 
uncommon for the

[[Page 10185]]

Border Patrol agency to make a decision that that person is not a good 
risk for entry, that they might overstay their visa and not return 
home.
  I am not questioning that exercise of judgment, but if that same 
individual, 20 years later, is now a doctor and he has got a J visa to 
come in and be a doctor in the middle of America where there is a 
doctor shortage, he lands at Kennedy Airport with his visa to be a 
doctor, that would be a felony.
  So the point I am making is there is much in this bill that does 
nothing about crime but to make criminals of people who have done 
nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons why we should vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants. There is not a person who 
has participated in this debate today who cannot go back a few years, a 
few generations or several generations and find someone in their family 
who came here to the United States, but we are also a nation of laws. 
The loss of respect for the rule of law is absolutely a serious problem 
in this country, and the step-by-step approach to restoring respect for 
the rule of law and reforming our immigration laws starts with these 
bills, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate's Law.
  We are all about today, in this legislation, enhancing public safety, 
securing our borders, and restoring the rule of law.
  We give discretion to Federal judges--discretion to Federal judges, I 
would add--to make sure that people who have entered this country 
previously illegally and who reenter the country can be given enhanced 
sentences. It is not mandatory by any means, and, in fact, in many 
instances, it would be better to send the person outside the country 
and not have the taxpayers bear the expense.
  But in the case of the individual who murdered Kate Steinle and had 
reentered the country five times and had committed other crimes while 
in the United States, having that additional time that the judge could 
impose on that individual who was just being released for having been 
convicted of illegally entering the country, Bureau of Prisons should 
have turned him over to ICE to send him out again. But if the ICE 
agents wanted to, when he entered illegally the previous time, 
recommend that he be given more time than the sentence he just served, 
he would have still been in prison when Kate Steinle walked down that 
pier with her father and was murdered by him.
  So when those on the other side say this was not preventable by this 
law, they are entirely wrong. This law would have prevented that if a 
judge had chosen to impose that additional time that we are today 
providing in these cases.
  We also clear up some uncertainty regarding this current law, and I 
think it is entirely appropriate to do so. It will deal with some of 
the situations that those on the other side have discussed, but most 
importantly, it will discourage people from entering the United States 
illegally, particularly when they have already entered illegally 
earlier and have been convicted of a crime for doing so.
  So, to me, this is absolutely the beginning point of restoring to law 
enforcement at every level in our country the necessary tools to 
enforce our immigration laws, to work together to keep American 
citizens safe, like Kate Steinle and many, many others.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with about a dozen 
representatives of families who lost loved ones to the criminal acts of 
people who were not lawfully present in the United States. And so it is 
also entirely true to say that, had those individuals not been present 
in the United States, those crimes would not have been committed, 
those, in most instances, murders, in all instances, killings, would 
not have taken place.
  Therefore, when you enforce our immigration laws, unlike laws 
applying to American citizens who also commit crimes, in the case of 
people who are not lawfully present in the United States, these crimes 
are entirely preventable if we enforce our immigration laws. Therefore, 
I would urge my colleagues to support Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary 
for Criminals Act to make sure that we go down this road of restoring 
the trust of the American people in their system of government, in 
their protection by their government, and in their own respect for the 
rule of law and know that their government is upholding that with 
regard to other individuals as well.
  This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
additional letter of opposition to H.R. 3004. This is a letter I 
mentioned earlier on the bill.

                                        National Immigrant Justice


                                                       Center,

                                                    June 27, 2017.

  H.R. 3003 and 3004 Undermine American Values NIJC Opposes the ``No 
            Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' and ``Kate's Law''

       This week the House of Representatives will vote on two 
     bills that attempt to re-write our nation's immigration laws 
     to reflect a dangerous philosophy of governance. For decades 
     now, elected officials across the bipartisan divide have 
     joined together calling for a compassionate and common sense 
     approach to immigration legislation. These bills move us 
     further away from that goal. H.R. 3003, ironically named the 
     ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' will endanger the safety 
     of our communities by forcing local police to abandon 
     community policing efforts and become a full partner with the 
     administration's massive deportation force. H.R. 3004, known 
     as ``Kate's Law,'' will result in the unnecessary 
     incarceration of countless immigrants for the mere act of 
     migration.
       The National Immigrant Justice Center calls on elected 
     officials to reject such nonsensical and harmful legislation. 
     In the face of hateful rhetoric, now is the time to stand 
     with immigrant communities.


 H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'', will further erode 
   community trust in local police and put our communities in danger

       H.R. 3003 amends 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 to prohibit states and 
     localities from enacting policies that in any way limit 
     cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (ICE), even when federal courts have ruled such cooperation 
     unconstitutional.
       The law would strip localities of vital discretion to enact 
     immigration-enforcement-related laws and policies that are 
     smart and effective for their communities. Specifically, it 
     prohibits localities from declining to comply with requests 
     from ICE to jail individuals under detainer requests even 
     when doing so will put them in blatant violation of binding 
     federal court orders. Our communities are safer when 
     residents feel safe calling for help and assisting police in 
     investigating and prosecuting crimes. By effectively forcing 
     localities into the business of federal immigration law, this 
     law will preclude cities and counties from using their 
     limited local resources to address public safety concerns in 
     the ways they deem most appropriate and effective.
       On top of the danger the bill poses to community safety, 
     this law arguably violates the ``anti-commandeering'' 
     principle of the Tenth Amendment of the United States 
     Constitution.
       H.R. 3003 punishes jurisdictions for engaging in smart 
     community policing.
       The law would punish jurisdictions that choose to limit 
     cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by stripping 
     federal funding that fulfills vital law enforcement needs, 
     including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
     (SCAAP), the ``Cops on the Beat Program,'' the Byrne Justice 
     Assistance Grant Program, and any other grant administered by 
     the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security that are 
     deemed ``substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, 
     national security, immigration, or naturalization.'' In 
     addition to running further afoul of the Tenth Amendment, 
     this law cruelly forces jurisdictions to choose between 
     maintaining critical funds, including for community policing, 
     or exposing themselves to the significant legal and financial 
     liability that accompany compliance with detainer requests 
     under the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 upends the criminal justice system by permitting 
     and in some cases requiring ICE to ignore criminal warrants 
     issued by state and local jurisdictions that it deems in non-
     compliance with other provisions of the bill.
       H.R. 3003 vastly expands ICE's authority to force 
     localities to detain immigrants with no regard for the Fourth 
     Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and gives local actors 
     immunity for resulting constitutional violations.
       The law makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by giving 
     lip service to the notion of ``probable cause'' but in 
     reality allowing ICE to ask localities to detain immigrants 
     longer than they would otherwise be

[[Page 10186]]

     held simply on the basis of a belief that the individual is 
     removable from the United States. The law then goes on to 
     provide local actors immunity for resulting constitutional 
     violations. In practice, this piece of the law essentially 
     requires local actors to violate the constitution and then 
     gives them immunity for doing so. It is legislative overreach 
     at its worst.
       H.R. 3003 demonizes immigrants by creating a new private 
     right of action for victims of crime solely on the basis of 
     the citizenship status of the perpetrator of the crime.
       The law provides that an individual or surviving relative 
     can bring a lawsuit against a state or locality if the 
     perpetrator of the offense is a non-citizen and was released 
     from custody pursuant to a trust policy. This provision 
     allows the worst kind of scapegoating, manipulating 
     individual tragedies to demonize all immigrants.
       H.R. 3003 expands the already damaging ``mandatory 
     detention'' provisions of immigration law, requiring no-bond 
     detention for large categories of undocumented individuals 
     for the duration of deportation proceedings against them.
       The law thumbs its nose at the basic due process 
     protections of our United States Constitution, explicitly 
     approving of indefinite detention for individuals in 
     immigration custody regardless of their community ties to the 
     United States or necessity for detention. Specifically, the 
     law expands greatly the categories of immigrants who are 
     denied access to any individualized bond determination 
     throughout their time in immigration jail. With deaths in 
     immigration detention occurring with alarming frequency and 
     rates of representation in detention alarmingly low, these 
     provisions are nothing but cruel.


   H.R. 3004, ``Kate's Law,'' will further the mass incarceration of 
 immigrants--including asylum seekers--by increasing penalties for the 
                         mere act of migration

       H.R. 3004 expands the existing criminal offense of illegal 
     reentry to punish legitimate asylum seekers fleeing violence 
     in their countries of origin.
       The law expands the category of individuals punishable by 
     section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to include 
     even those men and women who surrender themselves at the 
     southern border to seek protection in the United States.
       H.R. 3004 senselessly expands sentencing enhancements for 
     illegal reentry at a time when more than half of all federal 
     prosecutions target migration-related offenses.
       The law provides incredibly harsh sentencing enhancements 
     for individuals seeking to return to the United States after 
     a previous removal on the basis of prior convictions or 
     entries. Apart from the cruel and unnecessary use of federal 
     prison to separate families, this bill will prove exorbitant 
     in its costs at a time when taxpayers have already footed a 
     bill of more than $7 billion to incarcerate migrants for 
     migration-related offenses over the past decade.
       H.R. 3004 punishes immigrants for illegal reentry even if 
     their previous deportation orders were unlawful and deprived 
     them of the opportunity to seek protection. This law entirely 
     prohibits defendants in illegal reentry cases from 
     challenging the validity of their prior deportation orders. 
     This provision is blatantly unconstitutional and in violation 
     of Supreme Court jurisprudence that protects against 
     punishing immigrants on the basis of legally defective 
     deportation orders. See U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 
     (1987). This law will criminalize, for example, asylum 
     seekers who return to the United States after being 
     previously denied the opportunity to present their claims for 
     protection. Given the already anemic protections for asylum 
     seekers at our southern border, these provisions will 
     inevitably harm the most vulnerable among us.
       A vote for H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 is a vote for hatred and 
     a vote against community safety. NIJC calls on Members of 
     Congress to stand on the right of history and oppose these 
     harmful measures.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  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

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3004 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. 3. PROTECTING VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING.

       Section 276 of such Act is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i) Protecting Victims of Trafficking.--It shall not be a 
     violation of this section for a victim of sex trafficking to 
     voluntarily present herself or himself at a port of entry to 
     request protection.''.

  Mr. GOODLATTE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle insist that 
today's bill is intended to keep Americans safe by enhancing penalties 
for criminals who reenter illegally or attempt to do so. I am offering 
an amendment that takes Republicans at their word.
  This amendment would make clear that H.R. 3004 would not be used to 
criminally prosecute and incarcerate sex trafficking victims merely for 
seeking protection at ports of entry.
  As should be evident at this stage of debate, the provisions of this 
bill extend well beyond immigrants with criminal histories; in fact, 
they reach many of the most vulnerable and persecuted members of 
society. Perhaps most egregiously, H.R. 3004 authorizes, for the first 
time, the prosecution of individuals who voluntarily present themselves 
at points of entry to seek relief consistent with our immigration laws, 
and that includes individuals seeking protection as victims of sex 
trafficking.
  Let's be clear on the law. Today, it is not a crime for an individual 
who has been previously denied admission or removed to voluntarily 
present herself at a port of entry seeking to reenter the country 
legally. This bill changes that by making the simple act of going to 
the port of entry, which itself requires the physical act of crossing 
the border, a felony offense for such individuals.
  These are not individuals attempting to evade immigration agents. 
They are not trying to sneak into the United States. They are simply 
exercising the right to lawfully approach a U.S. port of entry to seek 
permission to enter.
  Under this bill, the act of approaching CBP agents now becomes 
criminally prosecutable as an illegal reentry. Anyone with a prior 
removal order or even merely denied admission commits a crime by so 
much as stepping into the port of entry.
  I mentioned the two asylee seekers a few moments ago. These are 
people who are fleeing danger and under our laws have the right to 
present their cases. Now, H.R. 3004 would do this to the women I 
mentioned: It would make them criminals, and it would allow for the 
prosecution and imprisonment for up to 2 years.
  Now, even if our immigration system awarded these victims protection, 
such as a T visa for human trafficking, the criminal justice system 
could take away her liberty.
  I strongly hope that my colleagues across the aisle would not seek to 
punish women who are fleeing from sex traffickers, because there are 
thousands of women who are innocent, abused, sexually trafficked by the 
worst of civilization, and instead of offering help to these women, 
this bill would put them in prison. It would prosecute them for asking, 
of all things, that their life be saved.
  I mentioned earlier, we put in the Record, the opposition of the 
Tahirih Justice Center to this bill. They advocate for victims of 
trafficking and gender-based violence, and they oppose this bill with 
all their strength. Here is what they say, and it is a quote: ``H.R. 
3004 will punish women fleeing horrific abuse. . . . `'
  Now, I disagree with some of the elements of this bill, and I have 
tried to make clear why, but I take Mr. Goodlatte at his word that he 
wants to make sure that we have a safe society. I think, if that is his 
hope, we will make clear that sex trafficking victims are not going to 
be prosecuted or considered criminals when they enter a port of entry 
and present themselves to U.S. officials.

[[Page 10187]]

  This amendment is the chance for Republicans to show that they really 
are for the rule of law. It would stipulate that this bill would not 
subject sex trafficking victims to criminal prosecution merely for 
voluntarily presenting themselves at the border to request protection 
from the unspeakable harm that they have suffered.
  I will close with this. Years ago, we worked together on a bipartisan 
basis to fight sex trafficking. We created the U and T visas. It was a 
broad bipartisan coalition. I remember now Governor Sam Brownback and 
others, people who are at other ends, opposite ends of the ideological 
spectrum, but we came together to fight sex trafficking. We should do 
the same thing today. Let's not forget that we can work together to do 
the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit not only changes 
the bill before us, but it also changes current law. It has long been 
Federal law that an alien who has been deported and who returns to the 
U.S. is subject to possible criminal prosecution.

                              {time}  1645

  Under this bill, an alien who has received consent from the 
Department of Homeland Security to return or is not required to seek 
consent from DHS has an affirmative defense.
  Obviously, such an alien will never be prosecuted. Never has, never 
will. In fact, because this is current law--and the gentlewoman was the 
chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 4 
years and never offered such an amendment to current law--I see no 
reason to address it in this legislation.
  I will say that we have all been committed in a very bipartisan 
fashion to combating sex trafficking. We passed several bills through 
this House, some with the gentlewoman's support, some without, that do 
indeed combat sex trafficking.
  But back to the issue before us today. Criminal aliens are reentering 
the United States after being removed all the time. Without stronger 
enforcement measures in place, this government cannot provide an 
appropriate deterrence for these reentries.
  Kate's Law takes a tough approach to dealing with criminal aliens who 
reenter the United States. Instead of the majority being subjected to 
no more than a 2-year maximum sentence, this bill takes an individual's 
criminal history into consideration and provides enhanced penalties 
accordingly. While the 2-year sentence may not deter illegal reentry, a 
potential 25-year sentence certainly would.
  Nothing can bring Kate Steinle back and nothing can absolutely 
prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. This legislation is 
meant to honor her memory and clearly demonstrate that this Congress 
will act.
  This legislation is another step in bringing stronger enforcement 
measures to improve our immigration enforcement capabilities. Longer 
sentences for those criminal aliens who reenter the United States 
illegally is an important aspect of that mechanism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, vote for 
the underlying bill, and to truly deter criminal aliens from reentering 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on June 29th I voted in favor of H.R. 3004, 
Kate's Law, which increases penalties for deported criminals that 
return to the United States.
  The bill is named after Kate Steinle, who was killed in San Francisco 
by a Mexican national who had seven felony convictions on his record 
and had been deported five times and had once again returned to the 
United States.
  I have always argued that we need comprehensive immigration reform to 
fix our broken immigration system. In 2013, I cosponsored the House 
Democratic comprehensive immigration reform bill, H.R. 15, the Border 
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This 
bill included similar provisions to Kate's Law and had broad bipartisan 
support in the House and Senate.
  Opponents of the bill argue that the bill does not make exceptions 
for asylum seekers or victims of human trafficking. That is why I voted 
in favor of a Motion to Recommit H.R. 3004 offered by Representative 
Zoe Lofgren which would safeguard vulnerable victims of human 
trafficking that voluntarily present themselves at a port of entry. 
Unfortunately, it failed on a 193 to 232 vote.
  I have always maintained that undocumented immigrants who commit a 
crime in the U.S. should be deported. While this bill is not perfect, 
Kate's Law ensures that dangerous criminals are prosecuted accordingly. 
I am committed to regaining control of our country's borders and have 
fought to restrict individuals who would do our citizens harm--both 
through terrorist attacks, drug smuggling, and other illicit activity--
from entering the United States.
  H.R. 3004 is not a perfect bill. It now heads to the Senate, where I 
hope it will be improved to include exceptions for victims of 
trafficking and those seeking asylum, similar to the comprehensive bill 
in 2013, and sent back to the House for further debate.
  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.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________