Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act; and H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017. The first measure, H.R. 2824, reauthorizes the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, or MIECHV, and provides pregnant women and families access to resources to improve maternal and child health and promotes child development. I am glad to see this bill getting the attention that I think we all agree it deserves, considering the important role the program plays in all of our communities. However, my concern is that, once again, we are witnessing my Republican friends take a policy that should garner broad, bipartisan support and instead scuttle the effort by playing politics. H.R. 2824's State matching provision is a threat to the core existence of this program. Because of this change from the past authorization, I fear that many States will lose Federal funding and will be forced to cut off home visiting services altogether. Where do you propose poorer States with lower investments in home visiting get the money to meet the matching requirements? Then, Mr. Speaker, what about Tribal programs? They are especially vulnerable to the devastation that will be wrought by making them come up with a 30 percent match. Native American communities struggle enough, as it is, without having to put up with these absurd requirements. I do compliment Mrs. Noem for fighting along with our colleague on the Rules Committee, Tom Cole, for a 5-year hiatus before they would have to make the match. But as one who represents two Tribes, the Seminoles and the Miccosukees, I don't even think, after 5 years, their vulnerability to devastation is going to be avoided. Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why are my Republican colleagues again choosing to abandon bipartisanship in favor of partisan politics? Our goals should be to reauthorize the vital program, not change long-established and successful policies that will hurt the most vulnerable in our country. This program, as traditionally reauthorized, puts families first in order to strengthen communities and improve outcomes for kids and their families. Without the MIECHV Program, at-risk families will suffer. I strongly support moving quickly to reauthorize this program before it expires on September 30, 2017. But adding a provision that will make it impossible for many States to fully participate in this program is not only not the way forward, it is downright dangerous. The second measure is H.R. 2792. It is a sidecar bill, as its only purpose in being considered is to offset the cost of the MIECHV Program. H.R. 2792 would reinstate an old, failed policy that had damaging effects for many seniors and people with disabilities by taking away Supplemental Security Income benefits from every individual who has an outstanding felony warrant, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged violation, the age of the warrant, or the condition of the recipient. Mr. Speaker, over 110 national, State, and local organizations have warned that H.R. 2792 is a cruel bill that could have catastrophic consequences for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Everyone can agree that dangerous criminals should not receive public benefits while fleeing justice. In fact, the Social Security Administration already provides regular notification to law enforcement of any beneficiary who has an outstanding warrant. This bill, on the other hand, despite its title, would harm seniors and people with severe disabilities, not felons. Mr. Speaker, a larger issue at hand is not simply the dangerous policy changes in the first bill, nor the failed unnecessary policy found in the second, but rather the partisan manner in which these bills are being considered, especially in the face of the laundry list of items that this body needs to urgently address in a bipartisan manner. We do not have the luxury of time to debate the majority's attempts to legislate failed and dangerous policies that will threaten families. We should be acting in the most exigent fashion to address issues such as ascertaining the full scope of Hurricane Maria's devastation on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and what we need to do to make our brothers and sisters in those areas whole again. We should not be spending our time taking a partisan approach to a program that provides pregnant women and families access to resources to improve maternal and child health. Rather, we should be working across the aisle to address the real pressing issues facing our country. Congress should be addressing the plight of the millions of American citizens living in total devastation in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Five days after Hurricane Maria decimated what Hurricane Irma had spared, 15,000 people remain in government shelters, thousands of homes are destroyed, roads are blocked, bridges buckled, and a dam in Puerto Rico is on the edge of collapse, threatening the lives of nearly 70,000 people with flash flooding. Two hospitals in the Virgin Islands have been destroyed, and lest I not mention that we have not dealt adequately with what is required in Texas and in southwest Louisiana and in Florida. Today, in my office, numerous representatives of government officials and organizations came to present issues concerning ongoing matters having to do with their concerns in our area. The Speaker of the House and the chairman of appropriations were with several of us in the Florida delegation last week to review and view the damage that has occurred in the Keys. And here we are, rather than dealing with a humanitarian crisis as towns are left without fresh water, power, and fuel, we are dealing with a dangerous bill that will address vulnerable people in a negative way. Officials reported that 1,360 of Puerto Rico's 1,600 telephone cell towers are down. The same holds in the Virgin Islands. With 85 percent of aboveground and underground phone and internet cables knocked out-- the same in the Virgin Islands--officials still had not had communication with 9 of the 78 municipalities. It has been difficult or nearly impossible for individuals to reach or connect with their loved ones. Let me make something very clear that many Members of the House do not understand. Everybody cries that FEMA should do all of the things that we would want it to do as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but FEMA today is dealing with 30 disasters in this country. I sat here a moment ago and heard our colleague from Montana describe over a million acres of fire ongoing there. In southern California, there is an extraordinary fire that is taking place in that particular area. This devastation, these disasters as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and elsewhere are only cracks of the service of the long to-do list that Congress is confronted with. The list is long and time is short. In addition to the MIECHV program, which the majority has decided to undermine here today, at the end of the week, the Children's Health and Insurance Program--CHIP, the Children's Health and Insurance Program-- Medicare provisions, and the Community Health Centers Fund all expire without any discussion at all in this House. We are leaving not only our constituents, young and old, and the American people in a quandary about their health insurance or treatment facilities, but adding unnecessary anxiety to their lives. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the snowball is only going to grow with the end of the calendar year looming right around the corner. Let me just remind my colleagues in the majority what needs to be addressed by December 8: reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program--I don't know what that was yesterday that they were trying to do with the FAA authorization--an absolute necessity in the wake of these devastating storms; keeping the government open and EPA pesticide registration fees. And by the end of the year, we must also act to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, which we now know plays a critical role in the fundamental aspects of our democracy. The Affordable Care Act's annual fee on health insurance providers needs to be addressed, important for the health of the marketplace, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate. Now, Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to address each and every one of the matters that I just talked about, and all of them must pass pieces of legislation. What we are witnessing today is a clear indication that my Republican friends do not share the same spirit, but would rather play politics. Let me just add one little bit about that. In the other body, the United States Senate, we saw an example of partisan politics play out to its extreme, and it is not likely that there is going to be an important measure dealing with the healthcare of Americans coming from the United States Senate back to this body that passed something that was an awful bill earlier in the year. But what did it do? It caused Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, who were working on bipartisan measures, to stop their bipartisan efforts so that we could go forward in the Senate on a partisan measure that is going nowhere. People sent us here to work together. They did not send us here to be partisan in every one of our moves. What we are witnessing here today is another example of partisanship. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will support the DelBene amendment, which will eliminate the matching funds for Tribes altogether. I mentioned that earlier. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is shameful that President Trump would end the DACA program without a single thought to the consequences this decision would have on the 800,000 young lives this program protects. Do the American people even want DACA to end? The answer is clearly no. According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll: ``Support for allowing these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69 percent of Republicans think they should stay.'' Congress must act to protect our DREAMers. Well, Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's heartless decision and restore the American people's faith in us. If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, I would advise my friend from Texas that I have no further speakers and that I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We stand here today with a to-do list a mile long, and we don't have much time to cross items off that list. By kicking the can down the road on nearly every past piece of legislation, this Republican majority has shown itself completely unable to govern. They have abdicated their duty to the American people to accomplish even the most basic of legislative tasks: passing a budget. Without Democratic help, they wouldn't be able to even keep the lights on. My sincere hope is that the next time we meet we will take up legislation that provides some much-needed relief to our brothers and sisters in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as my home State of Florida and Texas and southwest Louisiana; and address the other disasters that are occurring throughout our country, more specifically having to do with wildfires in Montana, in Oregon, and in California; and that we will begin the process of addressing every single one of the needs of this Nation, particularly its health and its healthcare in a bipartisan way. My colleagues on this side of the aisle stand ready to do so. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Riviera Beach, Florida. Riviera Beach is celebrating its 95th anniversary with a major event, ``Happy Birthday, Riviera Beach.'' Riviera Beach is known as the ``little city by the sea.'' Descendants of Bahamian settlers were among those who decided on September 29, 1922 to create the Town of Riviera. At the time of its incorporation, Riviera was one of the largest shipping points for fish on Florida's east coast. That fishing capacity drew more Bahamians to the area, including many black Bahamians. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, that strong tie would become the basis for the formation of a sister city relationship between the cities of Riviera Beach and Freeport on Grand Bahama. Riviera Beach, with its diverse population, has become known as a great place to live, work and play. I am very proud of this fine city, its residents and its elected officials, and I am glad that it has always been part of my Congressional district. Happy Birthday, Riviera Beach.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Anthony Lockhart, Principal at Lake Shore Middle School and Florida's 2017 Principal of the Year. Mr. Lockhart has shown outstanding merit and dedication to his profession. He has been a source of inspiration and courage for hundreds of students for more than 20 years with the Palm Beach County School District. He has gained well-earned accolades for his ability to connect with his students and has gone above and beyond his call of duty to improve the performance of a struggling school. Dr. Lockhart was named the Legacy Magazine 2015 Top High School Educators of the Year and was also named one of the top 50 most influential black professionals. After graduating from Jackson State University, Dr. Lockhart worked as a counselor to young people--it is this critically important work that would eventually lead him to become a school guidance counselor and work his way up to principal. Dr. Lockhart believes that education is the great equalizer--that no matter what socioeconomic or racial background an individual comes from, they can accomplish anything if they obtain an education. Lake Shore Middle School faced many challenges when Dr. Lockhart became Principal. Not shy about rolling up his sleeves and getting to work, he started interviewing teachers and community members to ascertain what needed to be done to make the school as successful as he knew it could be. Dr. Lockhart, armed with this information, then worked with teachers and community members alike to change the school culture. This diligent work resulted in the school going from being graded at a F- to a C rated school and being recognized by Florida Governor Rick Scott for being in the top ten percent of middle schools in five categories. Dr. Lockhart has no doubt that this achievement could not have been possible without the efforts from a supportive community, a focused group of educators, and a dedicated administrative staff. Instead of seeing students that embraced a failing attitude, he saw children that had not been given an opportunity to succeed; he saw teachers that needed encouragement, training and support; and a community that could be convinced that success was possible. Mr. Speaker, as we recognize and honor Dr. Anthony Lockhart today for his accomplishments and his dedication, may we also recognize the hope and light educators like Dr. Lockhart bring to the future of this country.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) to discuss our proposal. My good friend is the distinguished vice chair of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate. Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of my friend from Georgia with reference to the ongoing recovery period that we are experiencing in region four, and I especially offer compliments to the Federal family of agencies that have been on the ground working in all of our region. Like my friend from Georgia, my home is without power, and we urge patience. The authorities are working with the utility companies and they really do have a lot of people on the ground, and it is expected that they will be able to restore power and we will be able to take the long-range view with reference to recovery. Certainly, we want to thank the first responders. The local authorities have been on their game at their best, as well as the National Oceanic Weather Service that has supplied a lot of information to all of us. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act. Today's rule brings the number of closed rules for the 115th Congress to 42. In other words, more than 50 percent of the legislation coming out of the Rules Committee has been closed off from open and honest debate; closed off by my Republican friends. At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican colleagues and the Speaker that they would run the government and, more particularly, the people's House in an open and transparent manner. They even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been jettisoned in favor of an overtly partisan approach to governing that is indeed unfortunate. By way of example, the bill we are discussing today was introduced last Thursday, brought to the Rules Committee last night, and is now going to be put before the House for a vote without the committee of jurisdiction holding one hearing on the bill or Members having the opportunity to offer their amendments, which is too bad, because this bill is really in desperate need of help. During our debate last night, one of my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee posed three hypothetical situations and asked: If this bill were to become law, what effect the bill would have in those instances? Not surprisingly, the answers we got were confusing, convoluted, and contradictory. Now we find ourselves here today asking the entire membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if this bill were to become law. Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with this bill can't get much worse. Mr. Speaker, challenged by their party's leader, Donald John Trump, to fix DACA, House leadership, instead, brings this bill to the floor, a bill that does nothing but peddle in the politics of fear, a bill that purports to make communities safer, when all it does is serve red meat to the Republican base and foment xenophobia. Everyone in this House, everyone in this Nation, can agree that confronting and defeating the perpetrators of gang violence is a good and worthy goal. In fact, we already have laws on the books that do just that. We already have task forces on gangs in virtually all of our communities. This bill, on the other hand, will not make our communities safer. It will, however, undermine the rule of law in this country by betraying our commitment to the Constitution's guarantee of due process. The bill is also glaringly pretextual in its approach and overbroad in its effect so that it can be seen as nothing other than yet another move to implement Donald John Trump's promise to the Republican base to engage in mass deportation of immigrant communities across our country. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our immigration system is in dire need of attention. It is also clear that we should approach our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans and compassionate toward those who have fled unbelievable violence and are seeking a better life here in the United States. We should be proud that we remain--despite the anti-immigrant rhetoric emanating from the White House--a beacon of hope for freedom- loving people around the world, and we should remain welcoming upon their arrival. This, however, is not the tack taken by many of my Republican friends, and is certainly not the path taken by House leadership with today's bill. As evidence of their approach, we need only to look at the despair the Republican Party has cast upon the 800,000 DREAMers who live in this country. Instead of finally making permanent the status of DREAMers in this country as full citizens, the first act the Republican majority takes after Donald John Trump tweeted that he would end DACA, then tweeted that he would revisit the issue in 6 months, the first thing that they did was to present a bill that is so broadly drafted that a group of five or more nuns could constitute a criminal gang in the eyes of the law. Indeed, the bill's harboring provisions under section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act are, as Sister Simone Campbell said, ``so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. The Federal courts have found that `harboring' includes offering a known undocumented individual a place to stay.'' Sister Simone concluded with this salient point: ``This statute has been used against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to make it a weapon for the future.'' Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short years ago that the Grand Old Party, in the wake of their electoral loss to President Barack Obama in 2012, issued their autopsy of what went wrong. That report concluded that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to Hispanic Americans. Yet, instead of heeding their own advice, President Donald John Trump called Mexican Americans murderers and rapists on the very first day of his campaign. From that dark point on, Hispanic Americans have had to watch one of the two major political parties in their country descend further and further into the abyss of xenophobia. Democrats stand ready to have a serious conversation about comprehensive immigration reform and border security, and I urge my Republican friends to put the red meat aside for the moment and work with us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, a clear-eyed thinker on this subject, and has been the same for a protracted period of time. Few in this body can rival her abilities on this particular subject.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements in opposition to H.R. 3697 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Service Employees International Union, and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, September 12, 2017. Re vote ``no'' on H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act''. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and our nearly two million members and supporters, we urge members of the House to oppose H.R. 3697 which is expected to be brought up for a floor vote as early as Thursday, September 14. The American Civil Liberties Union recommends a NO vote on this bill because it will promote widespread racial profiling, violate First Amendment protections, expand mandatory detention of immigrants, raise serious constitutional questions on judicial review of government designations of certain groups, and bar humanitarian relief for individuals in violation of international treaties. H.R. 3697 will promote widespread racial profiling, risking violation of individuals' Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. H.R. 3697 will empower the immigration authorities to conduct dragnet sweeps of Latino communities and other communities of color. Media reports make clear that law enforcement has recently relied on questionable and unreliable evidence to assert that Latino individuals are gang members, including wearing certain kinds of clothes or doodling an area code from a Latin American country on a school notebook. Officers have alleged gang membership sometimes based on merely being seen with people who are alleged gang members or living in neighborhoods known to suffer gang activity. This bill gives DHS the latitude to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens including long-time green card holders for the ``crime'' of living in an immigrant neighborhood or showing pride in their countries of origin. Gang databases information-sharing arrangements between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities are flawed, inaccurate, encourage biased policing, and have been repeatedly shown to be unreliable. Gang databases have extremely low thresholds for inclusion: simply living in a neighborhood where there are gang members or talking to people who are gang members often results in a young person being placed in a gang database. An audit of California's gang database CalGangs found that law enforcement could not substantiate a significant proportion of their entries into the gang database. Reliance on gang databases will only further encourage racial profiling of young men of color living in poor neighborhoods. H.R. 3697 seeks to deport immigrants based on a mere ``reason to believe'' that they have been involved in gang activities. This overly broad designation could sweep up individuals who have not engaged in criminal activity. Indeed, in many cases, H.R. 3697 could make immigrants deportable for activities protected by the First Amendment. H.R. 3697 subjects an individual to deportation if the Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General ``knows or has reason to believe'' that an individual is a gang member. A person is also subject to deportation, if, the individual has ``participated in the activities'' of the ``gang'' knowing or having reason to know that their activities will ``promote, further, aid or support'' the illegal activity. This expansive language could sweep up people who have committed no criminal activity whatsoever. Even worse, H.R. 3697 risks making people deportable for activities that are constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. ``Reason to believe'' is an exceedingly low standard of proof that will subject people to deportation based on mere probable cause of gang involvement. This is especially troubling given the lack of strict rules of evidence in immigration court, where individuals may be deemed gang members based on hearsay. H.R. 3697 includes no exception for offenses committed as a juvenile. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the broad legal consensus that juveniles should be held to different standards of culpability. H.R. 3697 also includes no exception for having ``participated in the activities of a gang under duress, which is a well-recognized defense against criminal conduct. Many vulnerable individuals may have ``participated in the activities'' of a gang under coercion, including for fear of their lives or those of their family members. It raises serious due process concerns to subject individuals to removability based on such conduct. H.R. 3697 grants the Department of Homeland Security massive discretion to designate a group as a ``criminal gang'', based on secret evidence, and without meaningful judicial review, which raises serious constitutional questions. H.R. 3697 creates a vague and overbroad definition of a ``criminal gang'' that sweeps in lawful and constitutionally protected conduct. H.R. 3697 grants the Secretary of Homeland extraordinarily broad discretion to designate a group a ``criminal gang'', based on ``classified'' or ex parte evidence that the designated individuals may not access, even in a court challenge. The Government's ability to rely on secret evidence to make and defend the gang designation raises serious due process concerns. H.R. 3697 also bars individuals from ``rais[ing] any question concerning the validity of [a gang designation]'' in their own removal proceedings. H.R. 3697 provides little to no opportunity to challenge for those unjustly subject to a gang designation. A group cannot petition for revocation for two years after the designation, during which time alleged members cannot challenge the validity of that designation in removal proceedings--thereby punishing and deporting individuals over facts they cannot challenge. Similarly, groups have 30 days to file a legal challenge to the designation in court, but that judicial review cannot prevent other pieces of the act from moving forward, such as removal proceedings, until there is a final order from the court. Whether petitioning for revocation or challenging a designation in court, this act has the effect of punishing and removing individuals without providing sufficient options for recourse or redress. H.R. 3697 bars important forms of humanitarian relief for individuals fleeing persecution and children facing situations of abuse, which violates U.S. treaty obligations and raises serious constitutional concerns. At the same time, H.R. 3697 bars individuals accused of gang involvement from asylum and withholding of removal, thus stripping individuals fleeing persecution--including potentially thousands of individuals fleeing gang violence in Central America--from refuge in the United States. H.R. 3697 thus violates U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention and the international law prohibition of nonrefoulement, or the return of individuals to situations where they will face persecution or torture. H.R. 3697 would also strip children accused of gang involvement of eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which provides immigration relief to children facing abuse and neglect. To deport these children would be cruel and irrational when many of the children applying for SIJS have come to the U.S. to flee gang violence in Central America. H.R. 3697 irrationally strips individuals of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) which is an important humanitarian protection for noncitizens. H.R. 3697 expands the scope of mandatory detention, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. H.R. 3697 would require the mandatory detention of immigrants accused of gang involvement, without the basic due process of a bond hearing to determine if the person even needs to be locked up in the first place. H.R. 3697 would impose mandatory detention on individuals who seek asylum at a port-of-entry--many of whom are fleeing gang violence in Central America--by eliminating parole for asylum seekers accused of gang ties. The detention provisions raise serious due process concerns. As the Supreme Court has held, ``[i]n our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.'' Although the Supreme Court has upheld limited periods of mandatory immigration detention where Congress found certain categories of noncitizens to pose a heightened flight risk or risk to public safety, H.R. 3697 sweeps far beyond what is constitutionally permissible. Separate from any relationship with gang affiliation, the TPS-specific provisions of the legislation revise the statute to allow the government to detain noncitizens with TPS ``whenever appropriate under any provision of law.'' This potentially raises the specter that noncitizens who have been granted protection by our government could languish in detention for prolonged periods of time, in violation of due process. The detention provisions are a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. The immigration authorities already have full authority to detain any individual pending a removal proceeding. Individuals remain in detention unless they meet their burden of proving, either to an immigration judge at a bond hearing or to an ICE office make a parole determination, that they pose no flight risk or danger to the community. For the above reasons the ACLU urges a NO vote on H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act.'' Regards, Faiz Shakir, Director, Washington Legislative Office. Lorella Praeli, Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle is a multitalented person. In addition to his curriculum vitae, he carries with him the mantle of being a man of the cloth. I know he knows Matthew 25:35. It is oft quoted, and we do well to remember it. Among the things that are said in that verse are: ``For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.'' This sentiment must be our guiding principle, our North Star, as we work to repair our broken immigration system. Today's bill is in total opposition to this sentiment as it works to demonize, with one broad, careless, and probably unconstitutional stroke, an entire group of people, the vast majority of whom simply wish to find refuge from immense hardship in their country of origin. My Republican friends should take yet another in a long line of legislative mulligans on this bill and come to the table ready to work in a sensible way to fix our immigration system. I would suggest they could start by bringing the DREAM Act to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of this distinguished committee.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the members of this committee for allowing the opportunity to present this amendment. The extraordinary work of Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Rogers, as well as Mr. Frelinghuysen and other members of the Appropriations Committee, are deeply appreciated by all of us. This amendment adds an additional $12 million to the Economic Support Fund to increase assistance to the Ethiopian-Israeli community. Through the Middle East Partnership Initiative, our Embassy in Tel Aviv is already engaged in a number of valuable partnerships with the Ethiopian community in Israel. These programs are commendable, and I hope that their funding remains robust. My amendment would extend a modest amount of aid toward a different subset of the community, Ethiopian-Israeli youth. Israel's Ministry of Education recently completed a long-term review to determine how to best meet the needs of the community. The plan that was presented and adopted included approximately $20 million for programs to improve integration of the Ethiopian community into Israeli society, focusing principally on education and, more specifically, language and math skills. Israeli organizations that have focused on this area for years have had great successes. My first visit to Israel was, rather ironically because of today's events, with Mrs. Lowey and other Members. During that period of time, we visited one of the areas where Ethiopian Jews were being absorbed. And since that time, I have followed actively Israel's continuing courageous concerns with reference to those from not only areas that are right there, but as far away as Ethiopia. They work with American philanthropic organizations such as the Jewish Federations of North America, and private stakeholders, but, even with the new government funding, do not have sufficient resources to meet the needs of these communities. Supporting this type of programming would be a logical and effective way to continue improving upon our country's bilateral relationship and would build upon programs that are already implemented on the ground. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this matter, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds $20 million to the Economic Support Fund for the purpose of providing critically needed humanitarian aid to peoples persecuted by ISIS. These groups include Yazidi survivors of sexual slavery, as well as Christian, Shabak, and other religious and ethnic minorities. Footnote right there, Mr. Chairman. I found it interesting in the past few weeks that the Rohingya in Myanmar, formerly Burma, are, literally, expelled from their country. While I, as well as others, am proud of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the extraordinary work that she did, and her Nobel Prize, I am puzzled by the continuing conduct which mimics genocide in that area, and this is not about that, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. There are a lot of examples I could highlight to stress the importance of this amendment, but I want to focus briefly on the Yazidi. The crimes committed by the Islamic State against the Yazidi are amongst the most horrible we have heard of--mass executions, organized kidnapping, child soldiers, and sexual slavery. At the height of its power, the Islamic State sold girls and women in the open at slave markets. In a recent article titled ``Freed From ISIS, Yazidi Women Return in `Severe Shock,' '' The New York Times quotes Dr. Nagham Nawzat Hasan, a Yazidi gynecologist who has treated over 1,000 of the rape victims. He describes the victims as virtually ``unconscious'' and ``in severe shock and psychological upset.'' Thousands of women remain enslaved, and those who have escaped or been rescued, for them, the road to recovery is daunting. As we debate how best to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid, we must ensure this community is provided with support. Time is of the essence, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.