Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for yielding and the gentlewoman from South Dakota for managing this bill. The crux of this bill, however, is, again, to support and fund the multitrillion-dollar tax cuts that have just been introduced, that will give millions, if not billions, if not trillions, to the richest of Americans, and that is a very sad commentary. I oppose the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act because it is not that. It will terminate essential benefits for poor people, deprive poor people of due process, and increase mass incarceration. If the Rules Committee had simply taken my amendment, it would have remedied these criminal justice defects, which struck the arrest warrant language because it recklessly targets vulnerable people. This bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor individuals are completely unaware of a pending warrant. Let me be very clear. What you have is a situation where you may have a mentally ill individual in a nursing home who now has a warrant that they are not aware of. You will then cut off their benefits. What does that do to those families. Prohibiting SSI payments to individuals with an outstanding warrant or parole or probation violation without due process is simply inhumane. This bill would terminate those benefits from very low-income seniors and people with disabilities. They may not even know that they have these warrants. Now, I am a strong supporter of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, and I tell you that the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee had an amendment to pay for a 5-year reauthorization of that program, doubling the funding, by closing a tax loophole. They were not allowed to even vote on that amendment. What does that say? This is a conspiracy. There are 110 organizations that are against this, including the Alliance for Retired Americans, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network, and the Coalition on Human Needs. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a document with the names of all of these organizations. June 26, 2017. Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the 119 undersigned organizations, we urge you to oppose efforts to cut Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to offset the costs of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV program). H.R. 2824 would reauthorize the MIECHV program, which funds voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs for at-risk pregnant women and parents with young children up to kindergarten entry. The current MIECHV program has demonstrated beneficial outcomes associated with improved maternal and child health, including increased access to screening and early intervention for childhood disabilities. Unfortunately, H.R. 2824 proposes to pay to extend this valuable maternal and child home visiting program by cutting off SSI entirely for certain adolescents and adults with disabilities, as well as seniors. H.R. 2824 would revive an old, failed policy that had catastrophic effects for many people with disabilities and seniors, employing procedures that did not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Social Security Act currently prohibits SSI payments to individuals fleeing from law enforcement to avoid prosecution or imprisonment. The existing system is already working to ensure that those who shouldn't be paid SSI benefits don't receive them. The proposed cut, Section 201 of H.R. 2824, would bar payment of SSI benefits to people with an outstanding arrest warrant for an alleged felony or for an alleged violation of probation or parole. Most of the warrants in question are decades old and involve minor infractions, including warrants routinely issued when a person was unable to pay a fine or court fee, or a probation supervision fee. Based on prior experience with SSA's failed former policy, the people who would be affected are those whose cases are inactive and whom law enforcement is not pursuing. Many people are not even aware that a warrant was issued for them, as warrants are often not served on the individual. A very high percentage of people who would lose benefits have mental illness or intellectual disability. Many are unaware of the violation, may not have understood the terms of parole or probation, or may have other misunderstandings about their case. Warrant databases are notoriously inaccurate. Fourteen percent of the arrest warrants processed by the federal Warrant Information Network in 2004 were later dismissed by the court or returned unexecuted. The state of Alabama, even with an audit mechanism in place, reported a 13% error rate in its arrest warrant databases. Due to these kinds of inaccuracies, some people will have their SSI benefits cut off as a result of mistaken identity, or paperwork errors, which can take months or even years to resolve. When this failed policy was previously implemented by SSA, many of those who had their benefits cut off had no arrest warrant outstanding against them. For example, Rosa Martinez, the lead plaintiff in Martinez v. Astrue was, in 2008, a 52- year old woman who received notice from SSA that she was losing her disability benefits because of a 1980 arrest warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida. Ms. Martinez had never been to Miami, never been arrested, never used illegal drugs, and is eight inches shorter than the person described in the warrant. Despite an obvious case of mistaken identity, Ms. Martinez was left without her sole source of income. It was only after filing a lawsuit in federal court that Ms. Martinez was able to have her benefits restored. Resolving outstanding warrants can be very difficult and costly. People often must go before a judge in the issuing jurisdiction, and typically need counsel to assist them in navigating the process. Often, people have moved in the intervening years and live far away from the issuing jurisdiction. The proposed offset would cut off all SSI income. Losing this income will cause many people to become homeless and unable to meet their basic needs, much less resolve a warrant, a case of mistaken identity, or an error in the warrant database. Completely cutting off SSI benefits will leave people with little recourse to resolve an outstanding warrant, representing a step backward in bipartisan efforts towards criminal justice reform. By relying on databases of outstanding arrest warrants, this proposal seeks to punish people by presuming their guilt, undermining the presumption of innocence that is the bedrock of our criminal justice system. The existence of an arrest warrant does not establish that any criminal conduct has occurred. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges, or the charges are eventually dismissed. Even if an individual is charged and subsequently prosecuted, he or she is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The proposed offset also will have a disproportionate impact on people of color. People who are on probation are particularly susceptible to having an outstanding arrest warrant. Parolees and probationers are disproportionately people of color--in 2015, 13% of adults on probation were Hispanic, and 30% of adults on probation were African American. Finally, the proposed offset could harm some of the very same children who we seek to help through home visiting. In any given month, approximately 2.7 million children are estimated to live with a family member who is a senior or adult with a disability who receives SSI. These children's families are overwhelmingly the same types of families served by the MIECHV program: over 3 in 5 families with a SSI recipient age 18 or older have a total family income below 150% of the federal poverty level, and SSI makes up on average about 40 percent of these families' income. Cutting off SSI income would put families at risk of being unable to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and meet other basic needs--including children's and mothers' health needs. H.R. 2824 would also harm Social Security beneficiaries-- since over half of SSI recipients who are elderly, and almost one-third of SSI recipients with disabilities, are Social Security beneficiaries. In closing, we reiterate that although the MIECHV program has demonstrated beneficial outcomes, and reauthorization must be a priority, it should not come at the expense of cuts to SSI, which would harm seniors, adolescents and adults with disabilities, and their families, and should not be raided as a pay-for for an unrelated program. We urge the U.S. Congress to reject any proposals to offset the costs of reauthorizing the MIECHV program by cutting SSI benefits. Sincerely, National Organizations AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Aging Life Care Association; Alliance for Children's Rights; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Psychological Association; Association of Jewish Aging Services; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Center for American Progress; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Coalition on Human Needs; Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force; Defending Rights and Dissent; Easterseals; Economic Policy Institute Policy Center; FedCURE; FORGE, Inc.; Gray Panthers. Hand in Hand: The Domestic Employers Network; Harm Reduction Coalition; Institute for Science and Human Values; Justice in Aging; Justice Strategies; Latinos for a Secure Retirement; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Lutheran Services in America Disability Network; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental Illness; National Association of Disability Representatives; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council of Churches; National Disability Rights Network. National Employment Law Project; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives (NOSSCR); National Women's Law Center; Paralyzed Veterans of America; People Demanding Action; PolicyWorks, Inc.; Polio Survivors Association; Prison CONversation; Rainbow PUSH Coalition; Resources for Independent Living; Root & Rebound; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Service Employees International Union; Social Security Works; StoptheDrugWar.org; The Arc of the United States; Union for Reform Judaism. State/Local Organizations 2-1-1 California; ABD Productions/Skywatchers; ADAPT Montana; Alameda County Community Food Bank; Berkeley Food Network; BNICEH (Black Network In Children's Emotional Health); California Association of Food Banks; California Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive Services; California Church IMPACT; California Council of the Blind; California Food Policy Advocates; California In-Home Supportive Services Consumer Alliance; California Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; California OneCare; California Partnership; Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.; Californians for SSI; Center for Independence of the Disabled, NY; Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations; Columbia Legal Services. Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Community Service Society of New York; Communities Actively Living Independent & Free; Disability Law Center, Massachusetts; Disability Law Center, Utah; Disability Policy Consortium of Massachusetts; Disability Rights California; DisAbility Rights Idaho; Disability Rights New Jersey; Disability Rights North Carolina; Disability Rights Wisconsin; Empire Justice Center; Friends In Deed; GetTogether Adult Day Health Care Center; Homeboy Industries; Hunger Action Los Angeles; IMPRUVE (Independent Movement of Paratransit Riders for Unity, Vehicles, Equality); Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles; Kentucky Protection and Advocacy; Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County. Legal Council for Health Justice; Little Tokyo Service Center; MFY Legal Services, Inc.; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; Northern California ADAPT; Ohio Association of Local Reentry Coalitions; Personal Assistance Services Council; Public Counsel; PUEBLO People United For a Better Life in Oakland; Pushing Limits Radio (KPFA); Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Senior & Disability Action; Senior and Disabled Fund of San Bernardino County; Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County; Sonoma County Homeless Action!; St. Anthony Foundation; St. Mary's Center; UC Hastings Community Justice Clinics' Individual Representation Clinic; Urban Justice Center; Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, let me share with you the reality of this: Rosa Martinez. Yes, the Social Security Administration was doing this before, but they had to stop it. We are now reigniting it because Rosa Martinez filed a suit in 2008. She was a 52-year-old disabled woman from Redwood, California, who received a notice from SSA last December that she was losing her only source of income, her disability benefits, because of a 1980 arrest warrant for a drug offense in Miami, Florida. Ms. Martinez has never been to Miami, has never been arrested, and has never used illegal drugs. In addition, she is 8 inches shorter than the Rosa Martinez identified in the warrant. Do you want this random, reckless cutting off of SSI benefits because of misidentification? Identity theft is rampant. So this bill is failed, it is a failure, and it has a number of Achilles' heels that will not work. The bill will also increase mass incarceration. We should allow law enforcement to do their job. I don't mind giving them the tools that they need, but I refuse to allow individuals to suffer because of this very abusive bill. I kneeled on this floor because of injustice. This is a bill that is full of injustices. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2792. I oppose this bill for the following reasons: SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and resources. It will terminate essential benefits of poor people. It will deprive poor people of due process. It will increase mass incarceration. My amendment would have remedied these criminal justice defects in H.R. 2792, which struck the arrest warrant language because (1) it recklessly targets vulnerable and innocent individuals; (2) this bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor individuals are completely unaware of any pending warrant, and (3) there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity. The bill amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to make certain revisions that limit payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the (SSA), by prohibiting Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to individuals with an outstanding felony warrant or parole or probation violation. ``Almost none of the individuals who would be affected by this provision are actual fugitives from justice and most of the warrants in question are many years old and involve minor infractions,'' the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities said in a letter to Senators who tried to implement this policy. This bill is merely a continuation of President Trump's $1.7 trillion budget cuts of programs designed to help the millions of poor and low- income families that need these programs for survival. Plainly stated, this bill will terminate SSI benefits of very low- income seniors and people with disabilities, because SSI is granted based on financial need. In creating this bill, the sponsors essentially agree that it is best to incarcerate economically vulnerable people in order to fund the Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV). As the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group focused on low-income Americans, previously reported of the Trump's budget scheme, this bill would likewise, create an overall assault on a wide range of ordinary Americans for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the wealthiest. My Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means offered amendments to fully pay for a 5-year reauthorization of the MIECHV program and doubling the funding by closing a tax loophole called the ``stretch IRA''. Republicans however, would not let my colleagues vote on those amendments. My amendment and those of my colleagues would have made this bad bill a lot more palatable. Instead, the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lock people up, and do so in a manner that deprives poor people of their sole source of income, while purporting to safeguard against fugitive felons that are recipients of these SSI benefits. This bill is unnecessary because under current law, SSI and Social Security payments are already prohibited to people fleeing prosecution or confinement. Most alarming, this bill will terminate these benefits without any judicial determination of guilt, and thus, usurping recipients' rights to due process. The presumption of ``innocent until proven guilty'' is the constitutional principle at the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This principle guarantees that the government cannot deprive citizens of their rights without due process of the law. The bill maintains that payments could be immediately restored once the individual resolves any outstanding issues, a potentially lengthy and time-consuming process. Ask the thousands of individuals swept under this broad policy if that is true. SSA already tried to implement this very ill-advised policy and it resulted in thousands of court challenges in 2009 forcing the agency to repay billions of dollars it had withheld from people deemed fugitives. For example, Miami resident Joseph Sutrynowics' Social Security Disability Insurance benefits were halted in 2008 because of a bad check he'd written to cover groceries in Texas more than a decade earlier. Under this policy, SSA agreed to repay $700 million in benefits that were withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2007 in the Martinez v. Astrue case. SSA could also, reportedly, repay close to $1 billion in benefits to 140,000 individuals in the Clark v. Astrue case. We have already tried this before and failed miserably. Let us not waste tax payers' money in litigation, while causing poor folks to go hungry. As the old adage says: ``don't continue to do the same thing and expect a different result, that's insanity''. Past experiences proved that this policy was detrimental then, and it is so now. It will further exacerbate the epic tragedy of mass incarceration, and the attendant costs incurred by taxpayers, particularly in the well-documented higher cost of incarcerating the elderly and those in poor health. Even conservative coalitions like Freedom Works, American Conservative Union Foundation, Generation Opportunity, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance agreed that mass incarceration is extremely costly to taxpayers. In addition to tax dollars in litigation fees, incarceration cost taxpayers $407.58 per person per day and $148,767 per person per year. Criminalizing poor individuals, depriving them of their social security income benefits, and increasing the incarceration rate in this fashion will NOT solve the fugitive problem this bill purports it will do. In fact, this bill will expand existing problems of mass incarceration by increasing the likelihood for recidivism. Statistics show that incarceration does not serve as deterrence, nor does it keep our communities safe. For the reasons stated above, I oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules governing this underlying bill, H.R. 2792, introduced by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX). I oppose the bill for the following reasons: SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and resources. It will terminate essential benefits of poor people. It will deprive poor people of due process. It will increase mass incarceration. My amendment would have remedied these criminal justice defects in H.R. 2792, which struck the arrest warrant language because (1) it recklessly targets vulnerable and innocent individuals; (2) this bill deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor individuals are completely unaware of any pending warrant, and (4) there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity. The underlying bill amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to make certain revisions that limit payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the (SSA), by prohibiting Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to individuals with an outstanding felony warrant or parole or probation violation. Almost none of the individuals who would be affected by this provision are actual fugitives from justice and most of the warrants in question are many years old and involve minor infractions,'' the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities said in a letter to Senators who tried to implement this policy. This bill is merely a continuation of President Trump's $1.7 trillion budget cuts of programs designed to help the millions of poor and low- income families that need these programs for survival. Plainly stated, this bill will terminate SSI benefits of very low- income seniors and people with disabilities, because SSI is granted based on financial need. In creating this bill, the sponsors essentially agree that it is best to incarcerate economically vulnerable people in order to fund the Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV). As the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group focused on low-income Americans, previously reported of the Trump's budget scheme, this bill would likewise, create an overall assault on a wide range of ordinary Americans for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the wealthiest. My Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means offered amendments to fully pay for a 5-year reauthorization of the MIECHV program and doubling the funding by closing a tax loophole called the ``stretch IRA''. Republicans however, would not let my colleagues vote on those amendments. My amendment and those of my colleagues would have made this bad bill a lot more palatable. Instead, the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lock people up, and do so in a manner that deprives poor people of their sole source of income, while purporting to safeguard against fugitive felons that are recipients of these SSI benefits. This bill is unnecessary because under current law, SSI and Social Security payments are already prohibited to people fleeing prosecution or confinement. Most alarming, this bill will terminate these benefits without any judicial determination of guilt, and thus, usurping recipients' rights to due process. The presumption of ``innocent until proven guilty'' is the constitutional principle at the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This principle guarantees that the government cannot deprive citizens of their rights without due process of the law. The bill maintains that payments could be immediately restored once the individual resolves any outstanding issues, a potentially lengthy and time-consuming process. Ask the thousands of individuals swept under this broad policy if that is true. SSA already tried to implement this very ill-advised policy and it resulted in thousands of court challenges in 2009 forcing the agency to repay billions of dollars it had withheld from people deemed fugitives. For example, Miami resident Joseph Sutrynowics' Social Security Disability Insurance benefits were halted in 2008 because of a bad check he'd written to cover groceries in Texas more than a decade earlier. Under this policy, SSA agreed to repay $700 million in benefits that were withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or denied since January 1, 2007 in the Martinez v. Astrue case. SSA could also, reportedly, repay close to $1 billion in benefits to 140,000 individuals in the Clark v. Astrue case. We have already tried this before and failed miserably. Let us not waste tax payers' money in litigation, while causing poor folks to go hungry. As the old adage says: ``don't continue to do the same thing and expect a different result, that's insanity''. Past experiences proved that this policy was detrimental then, and it is so now. It will further exacerbate the epic tragedy of mass incarceration, and the attendant costs incurred by taxpayers, particularly in the well-documented higher cost of incarcerating the elderly and those in poor health. Even conservative coalitions like Freedom Works, American Conservative Union Foundation, Generation Opportunity, and Taxpayers Protection Alliance agreed that mass incarceration is extremely costly to taxpayers. In addition to tax dollars in litigation fees, incarceration cost taxpayers $407.58 per person per day and $148,767 per person per year. Criminalizing poor individuals, depriving them of their social security income benefits, and increasing the incarceration rate in this fashion will not solve the fugitive problem this bill purports it will do. In fact, this bill will expand existing problems of mass incarceration by increasing the likelihood for recidivism. Statistics show that incarceration does not serve as deterrence, nor does it keep our communities safe. For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, at about 2 a.m. this morning, our HPD, Houston Police Department, faced a tragic incident of one of our officers who was participating in a stop along with other officers on I-59 South. Unfortunately, a driver who paid no attention to the flashing lights and the work of these officers sped through and hit Nestor Garcia. My last word was that he was in surgery, with his family, and that all of those who could be there--the chief and the mayor--were at the hospital with him. So I simply stand to ask for prayers for Nestor Garcia and his family and indicate that we are well aware of the work of the outstanding police and fire departments during Hurricane Harvey and all of the time. I wish him the best and strongest recovery as a young man who just entered the police department and just graduated. I know that our prayers will help him and his family.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her leadership. I thank my fellow Texan on this effort. I am not on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I do believe the FAA should have this extension. I do believe I should advocate for the many employees and consumers of aviation needs, that the air traffic controllers should not be privatized. And I understand that this particular bill does not have that provision. The focus should be on extending a number of these health matters that are very important to us, and particularly, the inspiring health programs dealing with the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and the Medicare Intravenous Immune Globulin Demonstration project, a number of these. I do take concern with the diminishing of the Medicare Improvement Fund by $50 million and, frankly, I believe that we should move forward on these emergencies, particularly as it relates to hurricane victims or areas. Let me, however, focus on what is of devastating need in the areas of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and make mention of the fact that the U.S. Virgin Islands is included in these tax benefits, and Puerto Rico, agreed to by the Members representing that area. It is important that people do not have a penalty on their account tax provisions. I hope this can move quickly through the Senate. The employee retention credit for employees: the bill provides a tax credit for 40 percent of wages, up to $6,000 per employee, paid by a disaster- affected employer to an employee from a core disaster area. Charitable deductions: the bill suspends limitations on charitable contributions. In our community, there are people who don't have the gap to survive. They are working. Their job is closed down because of Hurricane Harvey. I imagine in other areas they may be receiving charitable moneys. Those who give the charitable contributions need to be helped. The disaster-related personal casualty losses and the special rule for determining the earned income tax credit is extremely important. We want more. We are desperate, and we need more, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we will be able to work together to get more for those who are desperate from these hurricanes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York for a very thoughtful and, really, a crucial element to justice. Allow me to acknowledge Mr. Jeffries for his leadership, Mr. Conyers and Mr. Goodlatte for working in a bipartisan manner, and the manager of the bill for his support, and indicate that this has evidence that we wish we did not have to see or could not document. I know that in my own State just a couple of years ago, the Federal judge in San Antonio was attacked and, in my recollection, lost his life. So we realize that justice requires us to eliminate impediments of fear and danger that may come to the Federal judiciary. This thoughtful legislation to redact addresses and other personal information from financial disclosure forms of all of the judiciary, magistrates, and appeals courts, district courts, obviously, and the Supreme Court, is crucial for the courts that represent the third branch of government and really represent a need of the kind of stovepipe to allow them to render justice. So on the financial disclosure forms, they are important for transparency, but I want to acknowledge that, unfortunately, there are individuals who would take out their disgust or contempt for the Federal Government and take that contempt out on the courts. For that reason and for the reason that it has been reported that there are terrorist cells in every State, that we don't know from where that threat will come, and the fact that we have this very important bill, I want to congratulate the author of the bill. I hope that we will pass this bill as quickly as possible, which protects our Federal judiciary by allowing their personal information and that of their family members to be redacted because justice has to be kept safe and secure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership. He has been particularly helpful in thinking through how we can work together on the multiple crises that Texas, Florida, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are facing. Let me thank the manager of the bill for working on these issues as well. Let me first of all indicate, as I have done earlier today, that I understand that the FAA extension is a clean extension which I will support, recognizing the international airport that is in my district. But again, I will seek the important leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and particularly, the ranking member, when it comes to dealing with not supporting privatization of air traffic controllers. I want to speak specifically to the hurricane tax relief. As I do so, let me particularly make mention that I had hoped this bill would have an extension of the CHIP program and the community health centers. Maybe we can work on that, because I know in many of our communities impacted by the hurricanes, those elements are important, community health centers, and, certainly, the Children's Health Insurance Program. I do want to make a point to say that I wish we could have gone further. I know that there were at least 21 different tax credits or exemptions that we could have had to help those who are impacted by the hurricanes, but these, I want to cite and say that I appreciate them being utilized for my constituents now. The bill would provide tax credit deductions and other relief to taxpayers in disaster areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Most measures would apply to taxpayers in parts of Florida, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In particular, access to one's retirement funds, the bill would waive the 10 percent penalty on each distribution from retirement accounts for taxpayers in affected areas. Individuals will be eligible to make the withdrawal if their primary residence was in one of the disaster areas as of the date of the storm and they sustained an economic loss.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the bill would increase the size of a loan an individual can take from their employee retirement fund under the retirement plan loans. It would also provide a credit for businesses that were rendered inoperable by the hurricanes but that retained employees, and on the charitable deduction for those who are giving dollars between the 23rd and December 31. What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look at some form of a disaster relief tax scheme, if you will, to enhance what we are doing now and to listen, where we can do this in a bipartisan way, working with Mr. Neal, working with the chairman of the committee, and really making sure we have a long-term response to the journey that my constituents and others will have to take. I close by saying that now we are up to 185,000 homes that have been severely damaged or damaged. We have got problems with mortgage deductions and a number of other issues, and, therefore, I am hoping we can work together.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, last evening, I took to kneeling on this floor in recognition, first of all, of the glory of this Nation, the pride that I have in representing the Nation in faraway places as a Member of Congress, and visiting heads of states, and visiting with the people of other countries who have such an admiration for the purity of our freedom. I also take great pride in Texas being a State that is home to any number of military bases and reservists and Active Duty and veterans. We interact all the time. Our military liaison in my office is a veteran of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There is no lacking in sense of pride, and not one of us remembers missing the national anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance as children growing up in our daily activities as we went to school. But I also have come to understand what those symbols mean. They are not just cloth or music. They, in fact, represent ideals and values, and many people interpret them in different ways. I abhor spitting or burning or destroying of the flag. I have not done any of those. Colin Kaepernick's kneeling in the early months past was no disrespect of his love of this country, but a recognition that people were hurting and people were losing their lives, and we needed to reform systems of justice to be able to respond to the grieving mothers who lost children, in many instances--I would say all the instances--that we can recall of the recent 2 years, unnecessarily. It did not mean that we did not have, again, the greatest respect for our men and women in blue. I will take no backseat to my honoring them, fighting for them, working alongside them during Hurricane Harvey, thanking them for the first responders and enormous work they did, working alongside them as we rescued a group of individuals in a church who have fled for their lives during Hurricane Harvey. We must understand each other as people, and it is unfortunate that the Commander in Chief has taken to a distraction that wants to peel away our unity and report in the news: They like it, don't they? He is really, working for his base. I don't know anything about a base. I know about Americans. I see them all the time, and they don't look like me. They disagree with me. They have different opinions. I still respect that opinion, but I do believe that we can all come together. That knee was in respect of Colin and the young men who have now successfully taken to their knees, and the owners. Yes, I know that what they have done does not feed people; does not work on your retirement; does not get us something better than the Graham-Cassidy bill, which will destroy and undermine healthcare for millions of Americans, those with preexisting diseases, those who suffer from the lack of income, and those who need good healthcare--the very promise that was made by the President and all of us as Members of Congress that there should be some structure. There is no structure in the Graham-Cassidy bill. All it does is throw it over to the State and say: If you don't have the money, forget about it. Don't worry about them. Take the money and give tax cuts to the rich. That is not the American way. I rise today to say that I remain on bended knee in spirit with all of those young men. I look forward to working with the NFL and all the sports as we explain that these young men are vital parts of the community. Thank you to J.J. Watt and the Texans and all of those who have contributed. Humanitarian Crisis in Puerto Rico

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, now, what is the most important message? My people are suffering--and my constituents--still in Texas. They are suffering in Florida. They are suffering now extraordinarily in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Your eyes should burn and your hearts should be struck by the absolute humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico. As I listened to my colleagues this morning as I was coming to this floor already on these issues, they pierced my heart even more because Puerto Rico is under water. The disease is rising. People with medicine are losing it because they do not have refrigeration, yet the idle talk and idle hands of the administration are, in fact, not doing anything sufficient enough to save those lives. I, too, have people in my district who are unhoused, but I am here because we are unified, and we must be able to speak about the whole of America. I have been to Puerto Rico on a number of issues. I know the leadership of the former Congressperson, and I believe that it is high time--if this is water that Hurricane Harvey was, imagine the disease of being hit by 155 miles per hour. It is now time to put a military czar in Puerto Rico.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Send the C-130s, send the ships, help these people be rescued. This is a disgrace. I am talking about foolishness. Be a leader and be the Commander in Chief and stop all of this. When are we going to get the kind of leader that is deserving of the American people?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sick and tired of it. I want a President. I do not want the person that fools around while people are dying.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. * * *

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for guiding us and providing us an opportunity to really speak from the heart. I, likewise, want to acknowledge the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership as well, Chairman Richmond, and, of course, Congressman Evans, Congressman Veasey, and Congresswoman Beatty, who are conducting this CBC Special Order. I would also like to ask for them to beg my pardon for I wish to start with a commentary on those who are suffering and to bring attention to our friends in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico. Before I came on the floor, the cable news was reporting again the kinds of vision--or the kinds of visions and scenes that we had in the early stages of Hurricane Harvey: Come help me; but also a reminder of those in Katrina with the big, large sign: Is somebody going to help me? Now, in Puerto Rico, where I am understanding in many parts of Puerto Rico, no government help has come, probably the same in St. Croix. The picture I have here is a picture in my congressional district where we were attempting and did rescue about 60 people who were surrounded by water and certainly concerned, as others were, having to flee for their lives and looking for high ground. I am going to leave this picture up, because I would not want my comments going forward to suggest in any way that we are not concerned about those who are unhoused in Houston, Harris County, Port Arthur, Beaumont, and beyond; of course, in Florida; of course, in the Virgin Islands; and the cry for help in Puerto Rico. So I want to simply say that we in the government have to do our job. We have got to move faster, and we cannot move by Republican proposals for tax relief. We have to do this Democrats and Republicans. Work with us to craft the kind of language and relief that will provide these people with immediate housing resources. These are people without liability insurance. These are people in apartments where apartment owners are moving slowly to restore their apartments. They need cash. They need the distribution of the millions of dollars that all of this representation of people raising money. There needs to be a pool for housing. We need to give a cash allotment so that someone can get into a clean apartment or they can begin to get their items out of the stores--I don't want to call names--that you go and get wood and begin to fix your homes. This becomes a race issue. My colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus are really the ones who are going to be--along with a bipartisan effort, and our leader and our whip in the Democratic Caucus and working with the Speaker and the whip and the majority leader, let's get on with it. They actually need direct funding. This is a backdrop of the words that I want to be able to speak of as I talk about the tragedy of which brings us to the floor. Here is another example of people under water. This is happening all over in these storm-ravaged places. Yet we have to come to the floor to speak about an unnecessary distraction. While there is a fast-moving target toward North Korea by the boisterous words that have been coming out of the White House so that we might enter into an accidental war with North Korea, all I will say about that is: I don't know if the White House, the Commander in Chief, has been to the DMZ, but I have. I have looked a North Korean soldier in the eye, and that is what our soldiers do every day on that DMZ standing in the gap. Boisterous attacking and credulous language only will lead us into an accidental war. I further want to indicate that if there is ever a bill among others that continues to speak to Americans from all backgrounds, minorities in particular, that you are not prepared to address the healthcare of people who are in desperate need who have preexisting conditions. It is, though well-meaning, the Graham-Cassidy bill, another false attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Having met with health professionals today, I will tell you: between diabetes, sickle cell anemia, kidney disease, and prostate cancer, they cannot afford the Graham-Cassidy bill. Get on with it. Support the Affordable Care Act, because it becomes a race issue. The predominant number of individuals impacted by prostate cancer and diabetes are African American. So I want to ask: What is going on in this atmosphere of the Commander in Chief? I try to understand it because, from my perspective, this is dangerous ground. It is particularly dangerous in setting the tone on the whole issue of race in America. Who is the guiding force of setting the tone for race in America? It is, in fact, the leader of this country. It is disappointing that the words that were said by the White House, this President, does not recognize that African Americans have been in the United States military. It does not recognize that, in fact, we are the most patriotic group. And in being patriotic, we take no backseat to the respect we have for the flag. I came down to the floor so that I could be standing behind the flag. My back is to the flag. Am I protesting the flag? Am I burning the flag? I abhor burning the flag. I abhor the destruction of the flag. But I respect silent protests. It bothers me that the one who is so boisterous would have top advisers and Cabinet picks that have histories of prejudice. A person who leads the country denied responsibility of racist incidents that followed his election. He launched a travel ban on targeting Muslims. He attacked the Muslim Gold Star parents. He claimed a judge was biased because he was a Mexican American. The Justice Department sued his company twice for not renting to Black people. This is not a mirage. This is not a rumor. These are facts. In fact, discrimination against Black people has been a pattern throughout this leader's life. He refused to immediately condemn the White supremacists who advocated for him. He questioned whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States not for 1 year, but year after year after year, to the point that I was embarrassed for the former President of the United States, not him. He treats racial groups as monoliths. He trashed Native Americans and encouraged the mob anger that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of five young minority boys in the tragedy of the Central Park rape. They were not guilty. He took out a full-page ad in The New York Times wrongly and asked for their execution, the death penalty to those who are not guilty. He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester. He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man passionate. He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic image created by supremacists. So now we defend him even more. Now we suggest that he is playing to his base, that it is okay, and that there are people who believe in what he is saying. There is a percentage of Americans who believe that we should not kneel during the national anthem. These are nothing but things that represent democracy. Democracy is living and breathing. It is in your heart, your mind, and your soul. I am an American because of her values. The national anthem was written by a man, and we sing it with pride. But it is not God. The flag is not God. It is a symbol of the democracy, the Constitution, and the freedom of speech that is given. Let me be very clear: none of those football players and others desecrated the flag. They did not spit on it. They did not burn it. They did not desecrate it. So I came tonight to suggest that there are still two Americas, because it does not seem that there is any understanding of the heroism of people of color. And I have to talk particularly about African Americans who served in the United States military. Crispus Attucks was an iconic patriot engaging in a protest in 1770. He was shot by royalist soldiers in the Boston Massacre. Does the White House know Crispus Attucks? Does he know those who have come through the ages, who fought for the Union in the Civil War? Yet, in doing so, the treatment of African Americans continued to be dastardly violent into the lynchings of the 1900s. Yet we remain patriotic. All we ask is the doors of opportunity be opened and that our leaders respect us. So let me say to those who don't understand that the First Amendment does not in any way define ``do not stand for'' or ``do stand for the national anthem and the flag.'' There is nothing in the law that indicates that these individuals are desecrating the flag. I join with the statements of Commissioner Roger Goodell. I join with the statement of the Texans by Bob McNair. I join the Seattle statement--the most potent statement--that talks about the facts that these individuals have a right to express themselves. But I do not join with the President, who would say: Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a B off the field; out; he is fired; he is fired? I join with our NFL. Do you know what you are saying? You are talking about African-American mothers. You are calling them a son of a B. You are calling those children's mother--single mothers sometimes; mothers who have fought to overcome to get their children where they could be--and these boys--and I'm going to call them that-- who have gone out to the community and tried to be of good conscience, you have said that their mother is a son of a B. That is racist. If you don't understand that that is racist--as a mom, I come to this floor and I say to the mothers of those children: I love your sons. Thank you to the NFL and the owners who stood up. Thank you to those who are not African American, who joined with their fellow brothers on the field and knelt--not in desecration of the national anthem, not in desecration of the blood that was shed by the soldiers who are on battlefields; some of them supporting and shouting for those NFL in terms of the brotherhood. We will never dishonor our military. How can we? We are the military. We are everything. We are integrated into the American society. We simply ask for the dignity of respect to not call our mothers a son of a B. If they kneel--I heard a young man who is an NFL player say that he will kneel from now on, and the only reason he is doing it is because someone has the lack of judgment to provoke the situation and call their mothers a name. I refuse to accept that as a standard of leadership for the highest office in the world. Even if you never understand it, sir, if you think you are playing to your base, if you are not the unifier, then we will continue to stand in the gap, and racism is going to be under our foot. Do you know where else it is going to be? It is going to be under our knee because we in the Congressional Black Caucus have always stood for what is right. There is no basis in the First Amendment that says that you cannot kneel during the national anthem or in front of the flag. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of press. Prohibition against abridging freedom of speech applies to Congress and State and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Speech may be abridged in two distinct ways: directly by regulating content of speech; indirectly by regulating time, manner, and place. So you cannot abridge by standing up with tweets. You cannot abridge without law and regulation. There is no regulation that says that these young men cannot stand against the dishonoring of their mothers by saying: Fire the son of a B. You tell me which of those children's mothers are a son of a B. That is racism. You cannot deny it. You cannot run from it. I kneel in honor of them. I kneel in front of the flag and on this floor. I kneel in honor of the First Amendment. I kneel because the flag is a symbol for freedom. I kneel because I am going to stand against racism. I kneel because I will stand with those young men, I will stand with our soldiers, and I will stand with America. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the President's most recent racially inflammatory statements and actions. On Election Night the President-Elect pledged to the nation that he would be a president to all Americans. The President has failed spectacularly to keep that promise and his pledge rings hollow to tens of millions of Americans. Last Friday, in Huntsville, Alabama, a state that was a capitol of the Confederacy, and the locus of some many seminal events in American history and the Civil Rights Movement, that one of his fondest wishes, saying: Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ``Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He's fired. He's fired!'' You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to say, ``That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired.'' And that owner, they don't know it. They don't know it. They'll be the most popular person, for a week. They'll be the most popular person in this country. The President's remarks are wrong and display a shocking lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the role of non-violent civil disobedience in bringing about social change, and the latest example of him falling short in upholding the honor of office. These are the subjects I will address in my remarks this evening. Trump Racial History 1. African Americans in military; 2. Name Trump called NFL players is offensive 3. Non-violent protest is protected speech under the 1st Amendment Graham-Cassidy Is Worst Obamacare Repeal Attempt Yet Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me share with our colleagues 5 Ways the Graham-Cassidy healthcare repeal bill puts Medicaid Coverage At Risk and is a disaster for Americans. The Graham-Cassidy proposal goes beyond the American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed by the House in May and the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) that failed in the Senate in July. The Graham-Cassidy proposal revamps and cuts Medicaid, redistributes federal funds across states, and eliminates coverage for millions of poor Americans as described below: Ends federal funding for current ACA coverage and partially replaces that funding with a block grant that expires after 2026. The proposal ends both the authority to cover childless adults and funding for the ACA Medicaid expansion that covers 15 million adults. Under Graham-Cassidy, a new block grant, the ``Market-Based Health Care Grant Program,'' combines federal funds for the ACA Medicaid expansion, premium and cost sharing subsidies in the Marketplace, and states' Basic Health Plans for 2020-2026. Capped nationally, the block grant would be lower than ACA spending under current law and would end after 2026. States would need to replace federal dollars or roll back coverage. Neither the AHCA nor the BCRA included expiration dates for ACA- related federal funds or eliminated the ability for states to cover childless adults through Medicaid. Massively redistributes federal funding from Medicaid expansion states to non-expansion states through the block grant program penalizing states that broadened coverage. In 2020, block grant funds would be distributed based on federal spending in states for ACA Medicaid and Marketplace coverage. By 2026, funding would go to states according to the states' portion of the population with incomes between 50% and 138% of poverty; the new allocation is phased in over the 2021-2025 period. The Secretary has the authority to make other adjustments to the allocation. This allocation would result in a large redistribution of ACA funding by 2026, away from states that adopted the Medicaid expansion and redirecting funding to states that did not. No funding is provided beyond 2026. Prohibits Medicaid coverage for childless adults and allows states to use limited block grant funds to purchase private coverage for traditional Medicaid populations. States can use funds under the block grant to provide tax credits and/or cost-sharing reductions for individual market coverage, make direct payments to providers, or provide coverage for traditional Medicaid populations through private insurance. The proposal limits the amount of block grant funds that a state could use for traditional Medicaid populations to 15% of its allotment (or 20 percent under a special waiver). These limits would shift coverage and funds for many low-income adults from Medicaid to individual market coverage. Under current law, 60 percent of federal ACA coverage funding is currently for the Medicaid expansion (covering parents and childless adults). Medicaid coverage is typically more comprehensive, less expensive and has more financial protections compared to private insurance. The proposal also allows states to roll back individual market protections related to premium pricing, including allowing premium rating based on health status, and benefits currently in the ACA. Caps and redistributes federal funds to states for the traditional Medicaid program for more than 60 million low-income children, parents, people with disabilities and the elderly. Similar to the BCRA and AHCA, the proposal establishes a Medicaid per enrollee cap as the default for federal financing based on a complicated formula tied to different inflation rates. As a result, federal Medicaid financing would grow more slowly than estimates under current law. In addition to overall spending limits, similar to the BCRA, the proposal would give the HHS Secretary discretion to further redistribute capped federal funds across states by making adjustments to states with high or low per enrollee spending. Eliminates federal funding for states to cover Medicaid family planning at Planned Parenthood clinics for one year. Additional funding restrictions include limits on states' ability to use provider tax revenue to finance Medicaid as well as the termination of the enhanced match for the Community First Choice attendant care program for seniors and people with disabilities. Enrollment barriers include the option for states to condition Medicaid eligibility on a work requirement and to conduct more frequent redeterminations. Much is at stake for low-income Americans and states in the Graham- Cassidy proposal. That is why I strongly urge our Senate colleagues to reject this latest attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record articles, statements, and tweets regarding this topic. 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause in a Nutshell ``Congress shall make no law'' . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press''--United States Constitution, Amend. I (ratified December 1791)

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In hurricane-ridden places, DREAMers are extraordinarily scared for their families, for the ability to recover from damages; and I see it every day. It is imperative that Republicans sign this bill to save and protect our DREAMers, who are, in fact, Americans. Do it for all of those who are suffering. Then, Madam Speaker, let me explain to you that FEMA needs to address the poverty of my constituents, individuals who are calling me in their apartments when their 84-year-old mother and themselves have lost everything, and they cannot get a FEMA inspector to that apartment. I will be addressing this with FEMA Director Brock Long, but we cannot go this route. People are still in uninhabitable housing. Over the weekend, seniors were evicted from their housing with no place to go. I am engaged with our public housing authority, but we have got to have a system that is orderly for those who are living in uninhabitable housing. And, FEMA, you have got to enhance the inspectors. These people are waiting for over a month for you to come to their apartment or home to inspect, because they have no resources at all, and they are depending upon the FEMA dollars based upon your inspection for the loss of personal items. The hurricane is still on for my friends in Puerto Rico and Florida and the Virgin Islands and Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, this bill is as much a criminal injustice bill as it is immigration. Serving as the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, I am both a believer in the dangers of MS-13 as many of my colleagues are. I offer concern and recognition of their violence. That is why this bill should be defeated because something as crucial as this does not need to be litigated in the courts. You make a bill with such insufferable frailties constitutionally without bipartisanship, without any hearings, and without the ability to set a legal standard of what is the definition or the understanding of a criminal gang. This is done in consultation with the Attorney General, who is an opponent of any form of immigration, legal or undocumented, consulting with the Homeland Security Secretary of which I am a member of that committee, and the dominant factor will be the Attorney General talking to the Homeland Security Secretary about criminal elements. Who do you think will prevail? How many will be swept up in this expansive, nonorganized, nonorderly, and non-due process legislation? The frailties of this bill are the very number, if you will, five. Five persons can be called a criminal gang. Mothers and fathers, listen: innocent behavior of young people tattooed or having friends could be called a criminal gang. Yes, individuals who have status could be deported, an ongoing group, club, organizations, or associations. They have expanded this, maybe high school kids who may gather to smoke marijuana. Maybe this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants. All we are asking is let us work together to get a bill that fights MS-13, not fights innocent people. The bill defines criminal gang, a group that has been designated as a criminal gang, as I said, by the DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General. It is unwise and irresponsible to not have the kind of organized framework. That happens from not having committee hearings and markups. It happens when you don't engage police officers in a wide breadth from many different aspects. I am disappointed that this bill did not have the opportunity to have the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations have input, and that would have been done if we had a full hearing or a hearing in the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, or a hearing in the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, or a hearing in the full committee as I mentioned. It lacks a constitutional construct. It begins to criminalize for associations. We are heading down a terribly unsophisticated road. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's recent report, nationally, 48,000 juvenile offenders were held in residential facilities. We don't need to add more, but here is the outcome: they are not just held, they are deported. Again, I emphasize to my colleagues that the ages could be very young because there are no firewalls dealing with the ages that might be swept up in this wide sweep of those who deserve to be responded to in a way that is not this bill. This bill pretends to be wrapping up and rounding up bad actors that are undocumented immigrants. That is the big calling card. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``Fact check: Immigration doesn't bring crime into U.S.,'' by PBS NewsHour. [From the PBS Newshour, Feb. 3, 2017] Fact Check: Immigration Doesn't Bring Crime Into U.S. Data Say (By The Conversation) Editor's note: In his first week in office, President Donald Trump showed he intends to follow through on his immigration promises. A major focus of his campaign was on removing immigrants who, he said, were increasing crime in American communities. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump named victims who were reportedly killed by undocumented immigrants and said: ``They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources . . . We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.'' Now as president, he has signed executive orders that restrict entry of immigrants from seven countries into the U.S. and authorize the construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. He also signed an order to prioritize the removal of ``criminal aliens'' and withhold federal funding from ``sanctuary cities.'' But, what does research say about how immigration impacts crime in U.S. communities? We turned to our experts for answers. Across 200 metropolitan areas (By Robert Adelman, University at Buffalo, and Lesley Reid, University of Alabama) Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring assumption that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early 20th-century presidential commissions that found no backing for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates that immigrants commit fewer crimes, on average, than native- born Americans. Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations have lower crime rates, on average, than those with minimal immigrant populations. In a paper published this year in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, we, along with our colleagues Gail Markle, Saskia Weiss and Charles Jaret, investigated the immigration-crime relationship. We analyzed census data spanning four decades from 1970 to 2010 for 200 randomly selected metropolitan areas, which include center cities and surrounding suburbs. Examining data over time allowed us to assess whether the relationship between immigration and crime changed with the broader U.S. economy and the origin and number of immigrants. The most striking finding from our research is that for murder, robbery, burglary and larceny, as immigration increased, crime decreased, on average, in American metropolitan areas. The only crime that immigration had no impact on was aggravated assault. These associations are strong and stable evidence that immigration does not cause crime to increase in U.S. metropolitan areas, and may even help reduce it. There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why more immigration leads to less crime. The most common explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant communities and generating economic growth. Across 20 years of data (By Charis E. Kubrin, University of California, Irvine, and Graham Ousey, College of William and Mary) For the last decade, we have been studying how immigration to an area impacts crime. Across our studies, one finding remains clear: Cities and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have lower rates of crime and violence, all else being equal. Our research also points to the importance of city context for understanding the immigration-crime relationship. In one study, for example, we found that cities with historically high immigration levels are especially likely to enjoy reduced crime rates as a result of their immigrant populations. Findings from our most recent study, forthcoming in the inaugural issue of The Annual Review of Criminology, only strengthen these conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis, meaning we systematically evaluated available research on the immigration-crime relationship in neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan areas across the U.S. We examined findings from more than 50 studies published between 1994 and 2014, including studies conducted by our copanelists, Adelman and Reid. Our analysis of the literature reveals that immigration has a weak crime-suppressing effect. In other words, more immigration equals less crime. There were some individual studies that found that with an increase in immigration, there was an increase in crime. However, there were 2.5 times as many findings that showed immigration was actually correlated with less crime. And, the most common finding was that immigration had no impact on crime. The upshot? We find no evidence to indicate that immigration leads to more crime and it may, in fact, suppress it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, opposing this, in particular, I would like to add this letter from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and a letter from the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC, September 13, 2017. Oppose H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Removal Act'' Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3697, which creates new, sweeping grounds for barring entry to or deporting immigrants based on the mere suspicion of gang affiliation. We oppose H.R. 3697 for the following reasons: It would subject people who have never committed a crime to deportation, creating a new definition of ``criminal gang'' that is unworkably vague and could cover a wide range of organizations ranging from churches to fraternities to political groups. It shifts the burden to individuals to prove they did not know they were affiliated with a gang that committed qualifying offenses, even though proving such a negative is often impossible. It would expand the use of mandatory, no-bond detention to people facing removal under the bill, even if they have not been convicted of any criminal offenses. Deportations based on suspected gang membership or affiliation would likely rely on flawed gang databases, which are rife with inconsistent definitions, improper documentation procedures, and inadequate safeguards. Creating a new ground of deportability for suspected gang members is also unnecessary, because the government already has enough tools and resources to deport such individuals. Most states and the federal government also have laws that punish or enhance sentences for individuals suspected of being gang members, recruiting gang members, or committing crimes while in a gang. In addition, DHS has long prioritized its resources to target suspected gang members for deportation. H.R. 3697 will disproportionately harm younger immigrants-- particularly unaccompanied minors, some of whom flee their home countries to escape gang violence, forced drug trafficking, and sexual violence, and who are at high risk of being coerced to participate in criminal activity. It will also indiscriminately bar these immigrants from asylum, withholding of removal, or other forms of humanitarian relief. Only a week after the elimination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, we are deeply disappointed that Congress's first legislative response is to further erode due process protections for immigrants and put them at an even greater risk of deportation. We urge you to oppose H.R. 3697. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta, President & CEO.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This clearly says this is not a bill against crime, it is a deportation bill. Save our children, Mr. Speaker. Let's do something different and defeat the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act of 2017''. This bill amends the INA to now include a definition for criminal street gangs as: An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of certain listed offenses, including: a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of marijuana (this would impact high school kids who may gather to smoke marijuana); bringing in and harboring certain aliens under INA 274 (this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants); identity fraud offenses (including knowingly possessing a false identity document); crimes involving obstruction of justice; and burglary. This bill also defines ``criminal gang'': a group that has been designated as a criminal gang by the DHS Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General. I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because the bill contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the American people. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee. In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale. This bill (1) is constitutionally unsound; (2) has a very low standard of proof; and (3) will result in a sweeping effect among many innocent individuals who have not committed any crime, and thus, raises due process and racial profile concerns. First, this bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland Security is to determine its designation of a ``criminal street gang''. I offered an amendment that would have required a uniform legal standard, which will govern the identification of Criminal Street gang members for purposes of ICE enforcement. According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of detention and deportation. If we begin to criminalize for associations then we are heading down a terribly dark road, particularly with youths. Statistics show that the brain does not fully develop until the age of 25. To punish them for mere association based on unsubstantiated evidence is bad legislation. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015. Due to this bill's vague nature, we would add to that alarming number, and further complicates mass incarceration. Second, the government's mere belief that someone is associated with a criminal gang is sufficient. Given the need for the Department of Homeland Security to come in and deport any individual, the bar must be higher than mere suspicion and/or belief. There must be a clear and convincing standard under these circumstances. This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent residence status; so long as the government believes the individual is associated with a criminal street gang. Even 13 or 14 year old juveniles that the government may believe are engaging in marijuana use, other drugs, or have association with criminal gangs would be subject to this bill's penalty. Third, this bill have a sweeping effect given its vague definition and overbroad targets for those who may harbor certain aliens and/or associate with criminal gang members. This bill has a discriminatory effect in targeting the immigrant community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises due process and racial profiling concerns. Criminal gangs are very complex and are not exclusive to the immigrant community. The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal moneymaking activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud. Strikingly, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a significantly larger percentage was non illegal immigrants, unlike the message purported in this bill. Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to name a few here that are mainly white supremacist gang groups. We could go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group. As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee; and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree. So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening. Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter. We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up. So Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning where necessary on behalf of the American people. We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools, health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change, building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country together for ``all'' the American people, we are instead debating a damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business. My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this bill. In its current form, it is bad for our country and does not keep our communities safe, but instead does the opposite. For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, this is a final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. While this amendment will not kill the bill, it will save lives. It does this by transferring $2.4 billion to the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account, offset by eliminating the funding for the President's border wall and new funds for ICE to be used for an additional 10,000 detention beds. Mitigation is preplanning. Mitigation is helping to mitigate the power outages all over the hurricane region. Mitigation is to minimize losses. When we listen to the better angels of our nature, we know in our hearts that this is the right and just and American thing to do. I along with my colleagues were eyewitnesses to the devastation inflicted on southeast Texas and Louisiana when struck on August 25, 2017, by Hurricane Harvey. Our colleagues from Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and those neighbors in the Caribbean are bearing similar witness to the terrible destruction caused earlier this week by Hurricane Irma. Irma has taken the lives of at least 75 persons, to date, including 32 in Florida; 5 in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and may be counting upwards; 37 in the Caribbean; and, as well, 8 seniors who died, and the numbers may be going up because of those who are critical; and a family of 6 in the State of Texas. 200,000 Floridians were housed in shelters as of Monday, and 7.2 million homes and businesses are still without power. Our hearts and prayers are with the victims of Hurricane Irma, and all Americans stand in solidarity with them and pledge to assist them in the long and hard work of recovery and reconstruction. Hurricane Harvey is a heartbreaking but, also, a heartwarming story of horror and heroism. The epic storm dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston metroplex. To put this in perspective, that is enough water to fill more than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply water to the power of the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days. More than 49,000 homes suffered flood damage. More than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm. But in the response to Hurricane Harvey, the world also saw the large and small acts of courage and kindness that Americans are known for, by our volunteers, our military, our Texas National Guard, and many others. More than 13,000 people were rescued in the Houston area by the U.S. Coast Guard and the local first responders, police, fire, and civilian volunteers risking danger to help their friends and neighbors and persons they did not even know. One of those who gave his life in service to others was Sergeant Steve Perez, who was funeralized yesterday, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department. He left his home that morning and said: I have got to go to work. There are things that have to be done. And then there was the DREAMer, Alonso Guillen, who came to Texas from Mexico as a teenager, who died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding. He was funeralized just a few days ago. That is who Texans are, and this is what Americans do. To date, Harvey has claimed the lives of more than 60 persons, including, as I said, 6 members of the Saldivar family, who perished in Greens Bayou while trying to evacuate their flooded home and community. Madam Speaker, Hurricane Harvey was one of the worst, but not the first, of natural disasters to befall our country; and, as Hurricane Irma demonstrated, it is not the last. That is why we need to pass this amendment, so that FEMA has the resources to assist States ahead of time, U.S. territories, federally recognized Tribes, and local communities in implementing sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitigation programs. Pre-disaster mitigation funds help reduce overall risk to people and structures from future disasters, raise public awareness, and reduce future losses before disaster strikes. I might also mention, it may deal with the issue of power loss ahead of time. Mitigation planning is key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage reconstruction and repeated damage. We needed it. We need more of it. Madam Speaker, we do not need another 10,000 beds in ICE detention centers, but we do need more than 10,000 beds in evacuation shelters. We do not need to spend millions detaining law-abiding families. We do need to invest in sheltering disaster victims. This amendment will ensure we spend less on raids and roundups and more on rescues. Madam Speaker, we certainly do not need to spend $1.6 billion on a wall to stem the hoard of bad hombres streaming across our southern border that exists only in the imagination or paranoia. Those numbers are down. Know the real immediate threat to the security of our homeland. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. While this amendment will not kill the bill, it will save lives. It does this by transferring $2.4 billion to the FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation account, offset by eliminating the funding for the President's border wall and new funds for ICE to be used for an additional 10,000 detention beds. When we listen to the better angels of our nature, we know in our hearts this is the right and just--and the American--thing to do. I was an eyewitness to the devastation inflicted on Southeast Texas and Louisiana when struck on August 25, 2017 by Hurricane Harvey. Our colleagues from the great State of Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands are bearing similar witness to the terrible destruction caused earlier this week by Hurricane Irma. Hurricane Irma has taken the lives of at least 75 persons to date, including 32 in Florida, 5 in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 37 in the Caribbean island nations of Barbuda, St. Maarten, Antigua, St. Kitts and Nevis. 200,000 Floridians were housed in shelters as of Monday and 7.2 million homes and businesses are still without power. Our hearts and prayers are with the victims of Hurricane Irma and all Americans stand in solidarity with them and pledge to assist them in the long and hard work of recovery and reconstruction. Hurricane Harvey is a heart-breaking but also heartwarming story of horror and heroism. This epic storm dropped 21 trillion gallons of rainfall on Texas and Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex. To put this in perspective, that is enough water to fill more than 24,000 Astrodomes or supply water to power the raging Niagara Falls for 15 days. More than 49,000 homes suffered flood damage and more than 1,000 homes were completely destroyed in the storm. But in the response to Hurricane Harvey the world also saw the large and small acts of courage and kindness that Americans are known for. More than 13,000 people were rescued in the Houston area by the U.S. Coast Guard, state and local first responders, and civilian volunteers risking danger to help their friends, neighbors, and persons they did not even know. One of those heroes was a Dreamer, Alonso Guillen, who came to Texas from Mexico as a teenager, and who died when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding. Another who gave his life in service to others was Sergeant Steve Perez, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department, who insisted on reporting for duty early despite his beloved wife's pleas that he stay home given the dangerous conditions outside. That is who Texans are and this is what Americans do. To date Hurricane Harvey has claimed the lives of more than 60 persons, including six members of the Saldivar family who perished in Greens Bayou while trying to evacuate their flooded home and community. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Harvey was one of the worst, but not the first, natural disasters to befall our country, and as Hurricane Irma demonstrates, it is not the last. And that is why we need to pass this amendment so that FEMA has the resources needed to assist States, U.S. Territories, Federally- recognized tribes, and local communities in implementing sustained pre- disaster natural hazard mitigation programs. Pre-Disaster Mitigation funds help reduce overall risk to people and structures from future disasters and raise public awareness about reducing future losses before disaster strikes. Mitigation planning is key to breaking the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Mr. Speaker, we do not need another 10,000 beds in ICE detention centers; but we do need more than 10,000 beds in evacuation shelters. We do not need to spend millions detaining law-abiding families; we do need to invest in sheltering disaster victims. This amendment will ensure we spend less on raids and roundups and more on rescues. And Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not need to spend $1.6 billion on a wall to stem the horde of bad hombres streaming across our southern border that exists only in imagination or paranoia. No, the real and immediate threat to the security of our homeland is the destructive power of the apocalyptic invading armies of wind and water, appearing in the form of hurricanes and floods. We do not need to waste money building a wall to prevent river crossings on the southern border. We do need more pre-Disaster funding to help people get across the rivers running through the streets of our cities and towns when hurricanes strike unleashing floods. Mr. Speaker, the choice now before the House is whether we should have more beds in detention centers or more beds in evacuation shelters. Instead of the closed and angry fist of walls, roundups, and detention, we should choose instead to extend an open and loving hand to help the hopeless, homeless, and helpless. In doing so, we reveal the true character of our nation and earn the blessings of our Creator. I urge all Members to support this motion to recommit. I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment to provide for the safety and security of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple proposition of adding $500,000 to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which supports locally based community organizations working to expand economic development, affordable housing, community banking, and financial services. The underpinning of this amendment is to enhance financial literacy, as seen by many of us in our district, as a very important component. Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this underlying bill to the floor, and let me indicate that this is a small measure, working with all of the agencies, to ensure that the many elements of financial documents or financial opportunities that low- income communities have, they will be informed and literate about how much to borrow and, as well, what opportunities they can take advantage of. Certainly, it will be impactful for those of us in areas where we have experienced the severe hurricanes and natural disasters that will be impacting our community for a long time. The CDFI provides for economic development, job creation, business development, and commercial real estate development, affordable housing, housing development, home ownership, community development, financial services, basic banking services to underserved communities, and financial literacy training. It also helps Native Americans through providing for financial assistance, technical assistance, and training to Native Americans CDFIs and other Native American entities proposing to become or create CDFIs. Through these programs, direct investment is provided, supporting and training financial institutions that provide loans, investment financial services, and technical assistance to underserved populations. And I can assure you that the inequities in banking in low-income communities, the access to banking clearly suggests that more work needs to be done by the CDFI. Finally, I would make the point that our overall community experienced a major loss of wealth in the last 15 years, starting with the 2007-2008 mortgage debacle, which caused a lot of low-income people to lose wealth. The importance of helping them with financial literacy, I believe, is an important element. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the Jackson Lee amendment to Division F of H.R. 3354, the ``Interior and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018.'' I wish to commend Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Quigley for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor. Mr. Chair, the Jackson Lee amendment improves the bill by increasing funding by $500,000 to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program for people receiving financial assistance and for the responsibilities that this very important subagency has. Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program administers the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, the CDFI. Through its various programs, the CDFI Fund enables locally-based organizations to further goals such as: 1. economic development; 2. job creation, business development, 3. and commercial real estate development; 4. affordable housing; 5. housing development and homeownership; 6. community development financial services; 7. basic banking services to underserved communities; and 8. financial literacy training. The good news is that this spreads across the Nation, regardless of whether you live in an urban center or the rural countryside. Through these programs, direct investment is provided supporting and training financial institutions that provide loans, investment financial services, and technical assistance to underserved populations and communities. From the perspective of Texas, this is a good thing because it emphasizes overall investment and development. CDFI also serves Native Americans through by providing financial assistance, technical assistance, and training to Native American CDFIs and other Native American entities proposing to become or create CDFIs. I appreciate very much the support this Committee has been given to CDFI and believe that the modest increase in funding provided by the Jackson Lee amendment will it enable it expand economic opportunity for more communities. Finally, let us remember that the loss of wealth in rural communities is creating hardships because, like urban dwellers, a substantial portion of their wealth, like, was tied to the value of their homes. The Jackson Lee amendment is intended to help restore and increase financial health among our individual families and communities. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule governing debate of H.R. 3697, the ``Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act of 2017'', and the underlying bill. I oppose this unwise and irresponsible legislation because regular order was not observed in bringing this bill to the floor, the bill contains several constitutional and procedural defects, and is an unnecessary diversion and distraction from the real issues facing the American people. As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I am highly disappointed that this bill was rushed to the floor without any thorough and thoughtful consideration by the Judiciary Committee. In particular, there was no markup or hearing on this legislation that has such wide ranging and profound effect on a mass scale. This bill extends the definition of ``criminal gangs'' as defined under 18 USC section 521, and amends the INA to now include a definition for criminal gangs as: An ongoing group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of certain listed offenses, including: --a felony drug offense, including felony simple possession of marijuana (this would impact high school kids who may gather to smoke marijuana); --bringing in and harboring certain aliens (this would cover sanctuary sites like churches that aid undocumented immigrants); --identity fraud offenses (including knowingly possessing a false identity document); --crimes involving obstruction of justice; and burglary. A bill of this nature where the consequences are so severe to many innocent parties, including a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, demands a more robust dialogue with a prudent and judicious approach. As legislators on the Judiciary Committee, we argue vigorously on behalf of the American people, as is the case in any other Committee; and in doing so, we will sometimes disagree. So to suggest that we would not have been able to debate the merits of this bill, so instead bypass the regular process is disheartening. Are we passionate about the issues that impact our legislative process, governance, and the American people? Yes we are! And we will continue to probe vigorously, as a legislative body having jurisdiction, notwithstanding the subject matter. We will not stay quiet as to not offend a few when so many issues with catastrophic consequences may result if we don't speak up. So Mr. Speaker I make no apologies for doing my job and questioning where necessary on behalf of the American people. We should be having vigorous debate on matters such as jobs, schools, health care, victims of Charlottesville, victims of climate change, building bridges, healing broken communities, and bringing this country together for `all' the American people, we are instead debating a damaged bill in order to advance the President's campaign promise on mass deportation, thus, distracting us from the people's business. We are also uniting in protecting the American people against violent crime. I care deeply about crime as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, thus, if we want to have that debate here on the floor, let's have a wholesome conversation. The FBI reports some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members that are criminally active in the U.S. and Puerto Rico today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud. Striking, for this conversation, in these 33,000 street gangs, a significantly larger percentage were non illegal immigrants, as this bill's objective purports. Some of those street gangs include: 211 Crew, American Front, Aryan Brotherhood of Texas, Aryan Circle, Aryan Nation, Aryan Republican Army, Born to Kill, Dead Man Incorporated, European Kindred, just to name a few here that are mainly white supremacist gang groups. We could go on, as gangs are found everywhere, in almost every ethnic group. As a result, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill for several reasons; first, it has a discriminatory effect in targeting the immigrant community by criminalizing immigration, and thereby, raises due process and racial profiling concerns. I offered an amendment which would have cured this defect by requiring a uniform legal standard in the Secretary of Homeland Security's designation of `criminal street gang' for purposes of ICE enforcement. Based on the government's own data via the FBI, it is clear that criminal street gangs are not exclusively limited to the immigrant community. Second, I oppose this Rule because the bill has a sweeping effect that will criminalize and/or deport anyone remotely connected to a supposed gang member, even where there is no conviction and alarmingly, no arrest. My second amendment would raise the standard of proof from a mere belief that someone is associated with a criminal street gang, to clear and convincing evidence. This bill lacks a constitutional construct for how Homeland Security is to determine its designation of a `criminal street gang'. That is why I offered my third amendment, which would have required a uniform legal standard which will govern the identification of Criminal Street gang members for purposes of ICE enforcement. According to this bill, `any' immigrant, including minors, such as a 13 or 14 year old juvenile, would be subject to the harsh penalties of detention and deportation. If we begin to criminalize people merely for their associations, then we are heading down a terribly dark road. Statistics show that the brain does not fully develop until the age of 25, and thus to punish juveniles for the mere associations they may have, is a bad idea and bad legislation. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention recent report, nationally, 48,043 juvenile offenders were held in residential placement facilities as of October 28, 2015. Due to this bill's vague nature, it would add to that alarming number, and further complicate mass incarceration. This bill would capture individuals, even those with permanent residence status, so long as the government believes the individual is associated with a criminal street gang. My amendments attempted to fix some of the glaring defects in this bill. In its current form, the bill is bad for our country and does not keep our communities safe, but instead does the opposite. For all the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill.