Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this bill from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the CATO Institute, Church World Service, and the ACLU. National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence, June 27, 2017. The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), comprised of national leadership organizations advocating on behalf of sexual assault and domestic violence victims and representing hundreds of organizations across the country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence receive the protections they deserve, write to express our deep concerns about the impact that H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, or ``Kate's Law,'' will have on victims fleeing or recovering from sexual assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, and on communities at large. This year is the twenty-third anniversary of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') which has, since it was first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will have the effect of punishing immigrant survivors and their children and pushing them into the shadows and into danger, undermining the very purpose of VAWA. Specifically, the nation's leading national organizations that address domestic and sexual assault oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 because: Community trust policies are critical tools for increasing community safety. Laws that seek to intertwine the federal immigration and local law enforcement systems will undermine the Congressional purpose of protections enacted under VAWA and will have the chilling effect of pushing immigrant victims into the shadows and undermining public safety. Immigration enforcement must be implemented in a way that supports local community policing and sustains community trust in working with local law enforcement. H.R. 3003 runs contrary to community policing efforts and will deter immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors not only from reporting crimes, but also from seeking help for themselves and their children. While H.R. 3003 does not require that local law enforcement arrest or report immigrant victims or witnesses of criminal activity, the language in the bill provides no restriction prohibiting such practices. Perpetrators use fear of deportation as tool of abuse. Local policies that minimize the intertwining of local law enforcement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) help protect the most vulnerable victims by creating trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community, which in turn help protect entire communities. Abusers and traffickers use the fear of deportation of their victims as a tool to silence and trap them. If immigrants are afraid to call the police because of fear of deportation, they become more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Not only are the individual victims and their children harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting violent perpetrators or seeking protection and, as a result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished. As VAWA recognizes, immigrant victims of violent crimes often do not contact law enforcement due to fear that they will be deported. Immigrants are already afraid of contacting the police and H.R. 3003 proposes to further intertwine federal immigration and local law enforcement systems will only exacerbate this fear. The result is that perpetrators will be able to continue to harm others, both immigrant and U.S. Citizen victims alike. Since January of 2017, victim advocates have been describing the immense fear expressed by immigrant victims and their reluctance to reach out for help from police. A recent survey of over 700 advocates and attorneys at domestic violence and sexual assault programs indicate that immigrant victims are expressing heightened fears and concerns about immigration enforcement, with 78% of advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are describing fear of contacting the police; 75% of them reporting that victims are afraid of going to court; and 43% reporting working with immigrant victims who are choosing not to move forward with criminal charges or obtaining protective orders. In addition, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latinos has dropped significantly this year, possibly due to concerns that police interaction could result in deportation. According to Chief Beck, reports of sexual assault have dropped 25 percent among Los Angeles' Latino population since the beginning of the year compared to a three percent drop among non-Latino victims. Similarly, reports of spousal abuse among Latinos fell by about 10 percent among Latinos whereas the decline among non-Latinos was four percent. The Houston Police Department reported in April that the number of Hispanics reporting rape is down 42.8 percent from last year. In Denver, CO, the Denver City Attorney has reported that some domestic violence victims are declining to testify in court. As of late February, the City Attorney's Office had dropped four cases because the victims fear that ICE officers will arrest and deport them. Both the City Attorney and Aurora Police Chief have spoken on the importance of having trust with the immigrant community in order to maintain public safety and prosecute crime? H.R. 3003 Will Unfairly Punish Entire Communities H.R. 3003 punishes localities that follow Constitutional guidelines and refuse to honor detainer requests that are not supported by due process mandates. H.R. 3003 likely covers more than 600 jurisdictions across the country, most of which do not characterize their policies to follow constitutional mandates as ``sanctuary'' policies. H.R. 3003 penalizes jurisdictions by eliminating their access to various federal grants, including federal law enforcement grants, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and other federal grants related to law enforcement or immigration, such as those that fund forensic rape kit analysis. Withholding federal law enforcement funding would, ironically, undermine the ability of local jurisdictions to combat and prevent crime in their communities. In addition, the fiscal impact of both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will result in limited federal law enforcement resources being further reduced as a result of shifting funding from enforcing federal criminal laws addressing violent crimes, including those protecting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, to the detention and prosecution of many non-violent immigration law violators. H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 Will Unfairly Punish Victims By greatly expanding mandatory detention and expanding criminal penalties for reentry, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 will have harsh consequences for immigrant survivors. Victims of human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are often at risk of being arrested and convicted. In recognition of this fact, existing ICE guidance cites the example of when police respond to a domestic violence call, both parties may be arrested or a survivor who acted in self-defense may be wrongly accused. In addition, if the abuser speaks English better than the survivor, or if other language or cultural barriers (or fear of retaliation from the abuser) prevent the survivor from fully disclosing the abuse suffered, a survivor faces charges and tremendous pressure to plead guilty (without being advised about the long-term consequences) in order to be released from jail and reunited with her children. In addition, victims of trafficking are often arrested and convicted for prostitution-related offenses. These victims are often desperate to be released and possibly to be reunited with their children following their arrests or pending trial. These factors--combined with poor legal counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of domestic violence charges and/or prostitution. H.R. 3003 imposes harsh criminal penalties and H.R. 3004 imposes expanded bases for detention without consideration of mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these victims. In addition, H.R. 3004 expands the criminal consequences for re-entry in the U.S. without recognizing the compelling humanitarian circumstances in which victims who have been previously removed return for their safety. Victims of domestic and sexual violence and trafficking fleeing violence in their countries of origin will be penalized for seeking protection from harm. In recent years, women and children fleeing rampant violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, have fled to the United States, seeking refuge. Frequently, because of inadequate access to legal representation, they are unable to establish their eligibility for legal protections in the United States, resulting in their removal. In many cases, the risk of domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human trafficking in their countries of origin remain unabated and victims subsequently attempt to reenter the U.S. to protect themselves and their children. Other victims of domestic and sexual violence and trafficking may be deported because their abusers or traffickers isolate them, or prevent them from obtaining lawful immigration status. They are deported, with some victims having to leave their children behind in the custody of their abusers or traffickers. Under H.R. 3004, these victims risk harsh criminal penalties for re-entry for attempting to protect themselves and their children. On behalf of the courageous survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking and human trafficking that our organizations serve, we urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and 3004, and to affirm the intent and spirit of VAWA by supporting strong relationships between law enforcement and immigrant communities, which is critical for public safety in general, and particularly essential for domestic and sexual violence victims and their children. Sincerely, The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. Since that is an element of the offense, the Mendoza case says you have to be able to at least collaterally attack that because you never had a chance to do so initially. This eliminates that constitutional case. You can't do that by statute. So the point I am making is that the majority of those who enter the United States without inspection are coming back to try and get next to their families, their U.S. citizen kids, their U.S. citizen spouses. They are not criminals. They are not creating any kind of crime. We all oppose crime, but this remedy is unrelated to the horror stories that we have heard. You know, we are creating law here, not bumper stickers. I hope that we will vote against this misplaced law and work together to solve the real problems that we face.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think is worth addressing is the provision of this bill that changes current law relative to unlawful entry or attempted unlawful entry. Under 8 U.S.C. 1326, this is a crime if the individual evaded detection. This has been the principle in Federal law for more than 100 years. Since 1908, the Federal courts have recognized that illegal entry and illegal reentry require entry free from something called official restraint, otherwise known as detention. Now, this bill would change that longstanding law. The bill amends U.S.C. 1326 to make the physical act of crossing the border a crime for any individual who has been previously removed or denied admission regardless of whether the individual was ``free from official restraint'' when doing so. Now, why is this a problem? As I mentioned earlier, individuals who, for one reason or another, need to come into the United States go to a port of entry, and they ask to see the Border Patrol agent. Under this law, that is a crime. Now, let me give you some examples of what that would mean. I will just talk about the case of Juliza, who was a Guatemalan-Indian woman. She faced violent persecution really based on her ethnicity. She was raped by family members who referred to her as a dirty Indian as they assaulted her. As she went to report this assault to the police, she was sexually propositioned by the officers. After a family member threatened her with sexual violence and death, she fled to the United States. She sought asylum, but she was promptly deported--turned away--by the Customs and Border Patrol. Within a month of returning to Guatemala, she was drugged, raped, and thrown into a river. She fled to the United States for a second time and, once again, was turned away without seeing an immigration judge or speaking to an asylum officer. Finally, the third time she came, her 8-year-old son had been threatened by gang members, and she was finally allowed to make her case and was granted asylum. Or the case of Carla. In June of 2016, Carla, who was from Mexico, and her children sought asylum after her father, son, grandfather, and uncle were killed in a span of 7 days, targeting her family. She went to the border to turn herself in. She was turned away by CBP agents twice. After the family sought assistance from an attorney, they went back to the border, to the port of entry, and the CBP officers finally processed them appropriately under American immigration law. This was their third attempt. The U.S. immigration judge in Texas ruled that they were indeed refugees and granted asylum. Now, I raise these two cases because you think deported, if you are turned away at the border, it counts for removal under the law. These individuals would be felons under this bill. Making Juliza and her 8-year-old son or Carla a felon does not save an American from crime; it just doesn't. The two are not connected. And so to think that this bill, which does such harm to asylum seekers, is necessary to save Americans from threats is simply incorrect. It is important to stand up for our long-term values in international law. There are other ways that one could become a criminal by showing up at the border. It is not uncommon that young people who have a valid visa issued by a U.S. consulate or Embassy come. They fly into the country and they are interviewed by a Customs and Border Patrol agent. Now, if that person on the visitor visa is a 20-year-old young man who is unmarried, doesn't have a job in the country he is from, doesn't own a home, and is from kind of a poor country, it is not all that uncommon for the Border Patrol agency to make a decision that that person is not a good risk for entry, that they might overstay their visa and not return home. I am not questioning that exercise of judgment, but if that same individual, 20 years later, is now a doctor and he has got a J visa to come in and be a doctor in the middle of America where there is a doctor shortage, he lands at Kennedy Airport with his visa to be a doctor, that would be a felony. So the point I am making is there is much in this bill that does nothing about crime but to make criminals of people who have done nothing wrong. That is one of the reasons why we should vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reflect back on why localities adopt these community trust policies. The chairman of the committee mentioned somebody in San Francisco who is suing the city. In a way, that shows the efficacy of the trust policies. This man, Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno, was a victim of crime. His truck was stolen. He went into the police department to report that his truck was stolen. There was a removal order that was 10 or 20 years old. He has an American citizen child. He is a working person. When he went outside, he was picked up by ICE. I think what that tells other people who are victims of crime who might have an outstanding removal order is: Don't report the crime. It is one thing if you have lost your truck. It has been stolen.

Ms. LOFGREN. Not that I am for stealing trucks, but here is a bigger problem. The cities of Houston and Los Angeles report a dramatic drop-off in reports of sexual violence. Why? Because immigrants are afraid to report; and not just because they might be undocumented, but they might have a sister or a next-door neighbor or a spouse who is undocumented, even if they are a citizen. So what has happened is with these threats come an unwillingness of immigrants to report crime, to be witnesses to crime, to keep our communities safe. These stories that we have heard of the victims of crime are heartbreaking, but we are not without remedies under current law. The most important law in our country is the Constitution. The Constitution includes the Fourth Amendment.

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

Ms. LOFGREN. The Constitution is the most important law we have. We read it aloud on the first day of our Congress. It includes the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause and warrants. A bunch of courts have made that ruling relative to detainers. Well, that doesn't leave the Federal Government without remedies. Get a warrant. There is not a jurisdiction in the United States that will not honor a judicial warrant. Don't blame the local police. Look to the Department of Homeland Security for why they have dropped the ball and been unwilling to take the steps that are well within their authority today to make sure if there is someone that they need, they get a warrant and they obtain that person for whatever is the next step in their process. To somehow suggest that this misguided bill is the answer is a big mistake.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't about fixing our immigration system. In fact, it makes the system more dysfunctional and puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how to police themselves and protect their people. It says: We here in D.C. know better than you do, local police, across the United States. Now, 600 or more local governments engaged in what they call community trust policies. These policies promote, among other things, allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences. Years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach best ensures these communities' safety. I think that is why we have received communications from the National Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to this bill, from the Law Enforcement Task Force--that is 36 sheriffs and chiefs across the country--in opposition to this bill, from the Major County Sheriffs of America in opposition to this bill, from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties. ICE is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose Police Department has told me, San Jose police are not enforcing the securities laws, they are not enforcing the Federal tax laws, and they are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. They are doing their job to protect their community against crime. Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding from jurisdictions. Now, what would that funding be? It is grants against violent gangs. It is grants for the Anti-Heroin Task Force and the Anti-Methamphetamine Program, grants on port security to prevent terrorists from getting into the United States, and grants for the BioWatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting biohazards and killing us all. That is not smart to take those programs away from local governments that are working with us to help keep America safe. Now, I always think, as I said earlier, we are not doing bumper stickers here. We are doing laws. It is important to take a look at the details of what is in this proposed bill. In addition to banning collaborative grants with localities, the remedies it has made available is if a community has a community trust policy, the Department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants--legal warrants--that are issued by that jurisdiction. That is astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth Amendment prevents them from holding people whose sentences have been served. In fact, there are a number of Federal courts that have made that determination, you can't hold somebody on a civil detainer request without violating the Fourth Amendment. There is a remedy to that: get a warrant like anybody else. The Fourth Amendment means something, and there is a remedy. Go get a warrant. I don't know why our Federal Government feels that they can upend constitutional law for their own convenience. Now, there is a provision in this bill that I find shocking. What it says is that if local governments violate the law--violate a court order--that they cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, that they are immunized, the Federal Government is going to pay, go ahead and violate the law. I cannot remember a time when we had a bill before us that said to States and localities: go ahead, violate the law because we are going to indemnify you for the violation. That is not the way our Federal system should work, and it is not the way those of us who believe in our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States think that things ought to work. Now, finally, it creates something that I think is truly astonishing: a private cause of action against a State or locality if because the detainer cannot be honored because of the Federal Court cases and a person is released and, for any reason, commits a crime that it is the locality that bears the cost, not the criminal. This is a crazy provision. We should oppose this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the National Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the National Association of Counties in opposition to this bill. National Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, 27 June 2017. Hon. Paul D. Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said, withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies-- which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety efforts. Local police departments answer to local civilian government and it is the local government which enacts statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement officers have no more say in these matters than any other citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our nation's immigration laws. The FOP issued a statement in January of this year regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the public safety impact without an automatic suspension from Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's existing policy. The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress, which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find another way to do so. On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R. 3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to find a better way to improve public safety in our communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks the 2-year anniversary of the death of Kate Steinle, which was a tragedy for her family and for our entire community. My colleague from California has mentioned the murder of Officers Davis and Oliver, something that shook our northern California community. These things are terrible, and I think we can agree that every Member of this House objects to, mourns, and is tremendously distressed and opposed to these criminal acts. But H.R. 3004 is not the solution to prevent such tragedies. The bill expands criminal sentences for illegal reentry offenses, but, as has been mentioned by the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the person charged in connection with Kate's death--I believe he is, in fact, the murderer--spent over 16 years in Federal prison. He was repeatedly deported. It didn't prevent his crime. I think it is important to recall that we are not here writing bumper stickers. We are here writing laws. So we need to examine what is the current law and what is the proposal to change the current law. The discussion I have heard seems to assume that there are no harsh penalties in law for people who reenter without inspection. Nothing could be further from the truth. Right now, there is a felony provision for attempts to reenter. There are criminal penalties for reentry of certain removed aliens. For example, if you are removed subsequent to a conviction for a commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against a person, or both, or a felony, there is a 10- year sentence. If you are removed subsequent to commission of an aggravated felony, it is a 20-year sentence, and on and on. What does the bill do? It, for example, changes the 20-year sentence to a 25-year sentence. Well, you can argue whether that is wise or unwise. I personally think whether it is 20 or 25 is not going to be the major difference for a heinous criminal. It also expands the definition of the misdemeanors that must be committed to entail these tremendous penalties. Right now, I mentioned it is penalties involving violence or drugs. This would just be garden- variety misdemeanors. If you were driving without a license, if you were loitering, that would count for the 10 years in Federal prison. I don't think that those provisions are likely to make a material difference in the kinds of crimes that we all abhor, but there is something else that is in this bill that I think needs to be attended to. The bill's sponsor claims this targets immigrants with criminal convictions, but the reality is the bill mostly affects other people. The bill, for the first time, would make it a criminal offense for an individual who was previously denied admission or ordered removed to seek to reenter the country legally, even if the individual has no criminal history, no history of repeated reentries. The bill does this by adding a definition to the term ``crosses the border'' that includes those who enter the country in ``official restraint.'' This small change means it would be a felony for a person who has been previously denied admission or previously removed to present themselves at a port of entry to request asylum, parole, admission, or another form of entry consistent with immigration laws. This is a drastic departure from current law. Under current law, an individual can be prosecuted for illegal entry if they are trying to evade or intend to evade detection. If they are trying to sneak in, they get caught, we charge them with a crime. An individual who comes to a port of entry and voluntarily presents herself to an immigration officer to ask permission to enter the country legally has not committed a crime. This bill would change that. Think about that for a minute. The bill makes it a crime to come to a port of entry not with the intent to enter the U.S. illegally, but to ask for a form of entry provided by the immigration laws.

Ms. LOFGREN. We may think that is a good thing or a bad thing, but we don't think that it is a crime to love your child and want to get back to that child. The desperation that these families feel is a direct result of our inability to create a top-to-bottom reform of our immigration laws that allows families to be united, allows the economy to meet its needs, allows the crops to be picked legally. We have created this problem by failing to enforce our laws. This bill doesn't solve the crime problem that we all care about. It creates new problems. It is not the answer to the terrible offenses that are at the name of it. In fact, those terrible crimes seem to me to be merely an excuse to expand deportation for the many, many people whose only offense is wanting to be near their families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. In other words, this bill makes it a crime for someone to try to reenter legally. If you are a victim of human trafficking and come to a port of entry to seek protection and, ultimately, a T visa, which the law allows, you would commit a crime under this bill. If your U.S. citizen relative is critically injured and you show up at the port to ask for humanitarian parole so you can donate blood or an organ to your U.S. citizen relative, you have committed a crime. In each of these cases, you can be prosecuted and put in jail for up to 2 years, even if you ultimately win your immigration case. I also want to make a point about some of the other types of people this bill would affect. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at least half of all the individuals convicted of illegal entry under the current statute, which is the most common Federal prosecution in law today, were coming to reunite with their family in the United States. Half of them had at least one child living in the U.S. Two-thirds of the offenders had other family members--a spouse or others--they were trying to get back to. So, in addition to the people who are trying to enter legally, this bill massively increases penalties on people who are trying to get back to their families, many of whom are U.S. citizens. The desperation of these broken families is a direct result of our failed immigration policy. Hundreds of thousands of immigrant parents have been deported over the years, leaving their U.S. citizen children as orphans in the United States. These parents--and I understand it-- are trying to get back to their kids.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is no debating that our immigration system is in need of reform. The system doesn't meet the needs of our Nation, its businesses, or its families. There are sensible steps we can take to ensure that it works better and that the rules are followed. But rather than work in a bipartisan and top-to-bottom fashion to fix our broken laws, today we consider a one-sided and enforcement-only approach that is rejected by the majority of Americans. This bill would drastically expand and, indeed, compel local involvement with Federal immigration enforcement. Even though the majority often professes its fondness for states' rights and local governance, the bill actually prohibits States and cities from policing themselves as they think best, including by having community trust policies that disentangle local policing from Federal immigration enforcement. These are policies that have proven to engender trust in law enforcement and drive down crime. The bill prohibits jurisdictions from declining immigration detainer requests, even when compliance would violate binding court orders. In fact, a lot of Federal district courts have found that, when it is time to release an inmate because their sentence has been served, it violates the Fourth Amendment to hold that individual upon a mere request by the Federal Government. If you want that person, the answer is simple: Get a warrant. It is the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the bill also likely violates the 10th Amendment by commandeering States to engage in Federal enforcement. The bill, as has been mentioned, cuts off critical law enforcement funding, and that is why the Fraternal Order of Police has written its letter in opposition to the bill. Taken together, the provisions of this bill undermine law enforcement's ability to keep communities safe, hurt victims and witnesses of crimes, and likely violate the U.S. Constitution. It is no surprise this bill is a priority for the Trump administration. Anti-immigrant sentiment may have become the hallmark of the Trump administration, but it does not represent the values of our Nation, and, indeed, the majority of Americans strongly oppose President Trump's agenda. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2017, I missed two votes due to a dental emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 300--Yea, and rollcall No. 301--yea.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. The bill, in fact, does weaken critical screening of potential CBP officers, and our country actually should be working to increase the security relative to CBP. CBP is essential. It is our first line of defense to stop terrorists, to stop drugs, to stop dangerous persons coming in, and we should not weaken our standards. Now, the overwhelming majority of CBP officers are honest, hardworking public servants. Crime and corruption has, however, been a persistent problem for the agency. Numerous CBP officers have been found to have strong connections to organized crime, including drug cartels. They are in prison now. In many cases, cartels try and infiltrate the CBP by recruiting people to apply for CBP positions. This results in illicit drug smuggling and other dangerous activities. In 2015, the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel found that--and this is a quote--``arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other Federal law enforcement agencies.'' In 2016, this same panel observed that ``corrupt CBP law enforcement personnel pose a national security threat.'' And it recommended that the current polygraph test be expanded, not reduced. Now, this bill allows for an exemption for local law enforcement and former members of the Armed Forces from the polygraph requirement. For example, if a polygraph has been taken in the prior 10 years, I think it is a mistake to think that that will protect us. In fact, the Inspector General at DHS, John Roth, advises against this bill. He explained that the polygraph changes, including this legislation--and this is a quote--``could put CBP at significant risk.'' He says: ``While it may sound reasonable to say you could waive requirements from former military personnel because they have passed a polygraph, Border Patrol agents work in a different environment that is not as controlled as the military.'' Now, it is important to note that, of the applicants for the CBP, two-thirds fail the polygraph test. That may be a concern, but we ought to be glad that people who are a risk are not actually hired by the CBP. I will just note that the Government Accountability Office advises that, between 2005 and 2012, there were 2,170 reported incidents of arrest of CBP personnel for misconduct. That is about one arrest a day of CBP officials. CBP's own Integrity Advisory Panel, and these are law enforcement experts, outside law enforcement experts, concluded in 2015 that ``there is data indicating that arrests for corruption of CBP personnel far exceed, on a per capita basis, such arrests at other Federal law enforcement agencies.'' And in its final report, that panel recommended that the current polygraph testing be expanded to include postemployment tests that are best practices at the FBI and agencies in the U.S. intelligence service. Now, I will just give you some examples that are real life examples from CBP, and this is from the agency itself. These are individuals who could be exempted. An officer who, when faced with a polygraph, admitted possession of approximately 100 videos and 10,000 still images of child pornography. A police officer who admitted to sexual assault.

Ms. LOFGREN. An Afghan veteran who had classified information that he admitted he had taken out of theater. An Army officer who would meet the criteria who admitted that he had removed classified information from Iraq. A police officer who admitted that he had smuggled marijuana into detention centers. It is not too big a burden to ask that applicants have a polygraph test and be clean. The Sinaloa cartel is recruiting people to apply to become CBP officers. Our protection is to make sure that we completely screen every single applicant so that the cartel is unsuccessful in infiltrating our first line of defense at the U.S. borders. So, with that, I know that the authors are well-intentioned, but this is a serious mistake for the security of our country, and I urge Members to vote against the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I do not at all question the intentions of the proponents of this bill. I understand that the entire rationale is to expedite hiring because of the vast number of vacancies. I do, however, question the wisdom of this approach. I think it is worth noting that, currently, two-thirds of the applicants for CBP fail the polygraph test; and that is important not as a barrier, but because that polygraph test reveals misconduct that makes them ineligible. Now, the current Department of Homeland Security inspector general, John Roth, has expressed strong reservations about polygraph changes, the waivers, and, specifically, about these bills. He indicates that we need to identify other ways to make hiring more efficient ``without sacrificing integrity and effectiveness.'' And, in fact, the DHS OIG is currently auditing the CBP polygraph program, as is the GAO. If you take a look at the bill, it allows for exemptions of the polygraph to certain categories of people, one of which is law enforcement officers who have undergone a polygraph examination as a condition of employment within the past 10 years. Well, you know, there was actually a Freedom of Information request on who flunked the polygraph tests in the CBP, and what has come out is that people who fall into this exemption admitted conduct that would make them ineligible, including child pornography, smuggling of drugs, theft. It is fine to say that this would only be used when you knew that there wasn't a problem. The problem with that argument is sometimes you don't find out what the problem is until you subject the applicant to a polygraph or they know that they are about to be subjected to a polygraph, in which case, they own up. So the Border Patrol is to be honored; they do a great job for us. But we know that the Sinaloa drug cartel is trying to recruit applicants. The last thing we need is for them to succeed, for our sake as well as for our brave men and women in the Border Patrol.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good solution to the dilemma that faces us. We do have a hiring deficit in the Border Patrol, but we cannot give up on the need to fully vet these people. The independent inspector said that the polygraphs had stopped dozens of applicants who have admitted to participation in human trafficking, defrauding the government, and have links with cartels intent to infiltrate CBP. There has been, actually, a release from the Freedom of Information Act of people who would be eligible for the exemption who admitted, under the polygraph, to sexual assault, to child pornography, to taking classified information from Afghanistan, to taking classified information from Iraq, a sheriff's employee who engaged in theft, and a police officer who was a smuggler. The Border Patrol cannot afford this. I think the gentlewoman's amendment actually preserves what we want, and I would highly recommend that we approve it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of international students, scholars, and the U.S. institutions of higher education they attend who have been unfairly penalized by the Trump Administration's unlawful efforts to limit travel to our country from several Muslim- majority countries. Among many faults, the President's travel ban fails to take into account the vital contribution international students, scholars and their families make when we welcome them to this great country. This, and the many other efforts undertaken by this administration to restrict access to visas, does not make our country safer, but undermines the valuable diplomatic, economic and cultural benefits that come from creating a more welcoming and diverse nation. International students contribute to the economic well-being of the United States. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, during the 2015-2016 academic year, international students and their families supported 400,000 jobs and contributed nearly $33 billion to the U.S. economy. In my district alone, during the 2015-2016 academic year, 3,724 international students and their families contributed $120.3 million, supporting 797 jobs. But this is just the immediate impact--the long-term effect of bringing talented minds from all over the world to our universities, many of whom go on to live and work and contribute to the United States, is immeasurable. When we close doors to immigrants, students, scholars, and travelers from all over the world, we close doors to our future. And when we particularly target individuals based on race or ethnicity, we not only show ourselves to be afraid of the world, we weaken our own security by cultivating enemies rather than friends. We should not back away from maintaining an open and welcoming nation and we will continue to stand for the universal principles that bring students and scholars from all over the world to study in this great nation.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues, Representative Anna Eshoo and Representative Ro Khanna, rise today to recognize Dr. Mary Papazian on her inauguration as the 30th President of San Jose State University (SJSU). Dr. Papazian is the first person of Armenian- American descent and the third female to serve as SJSU's president in its 160-year history. Dr. Papazian was born, raised and attended schools in Southern California. She eventually followed in her parent's footsteps by matriculating at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where she earned a Bachelor's, Master's and doctoral degrees in English literature. Dr. Papazian has gone on to enjoy a distinguished academic career spanning nearly three decades; She began her academic career at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, where she served as an assistant, associate and tenured professor of English and subsequently as Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Science. Dr. Papazian subsequently moved to Montclair State University in New Jersey, where she served as Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences before transitioning to the position of Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at Lehman College of The City University of New York (CUNY). In 2012, Dr. Papazian was appointed President of Southern Connecticut State University (SCSU) in New Haven, Connecticut, where she served with distinction for four and a half years before departing to assume the SJSU presidency in July 2016. Dr. Papazian's accomplishments at SCSU included strengthening programs supporting the successful transition of first-year and transfer students, engaging SCSU actively in its community, completing a comprehensive master facilities plan, and establishing a strategic vision for what will be SCSU's next decade, and for its first-ever comprehensive philanthropic campaign. Dr. Papazian and her husband, Dr. Dennis R. Papazian, professor emeritus of history and the founding director of the Armenian Research Center at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, have two adult daughters; Dr. Papazian has been and remains active in local and global Armenian affairs. In word and deed, Dr. Papazian demonstrates an abiding commitment to student success, the professional development of faculty and staff members, the intrinsic value of education, and the interests of the broader community. On behalf of the people of the 17th, 18th and 19th Congressional Districts of California, we extend our sincere congratulations to Dr. Mary Papazian of San Jose State University for this outstanding achievement.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Uplift Family Services, the oldest charitable institution in Santa Clara County. Uplift Family Services, previously known as EMQFF, is a non-profit behavioral health organization for children and families and will celebrate its 150th anniversary this year. Today, Uplift Family Services is one of the largest family centered treatment programs in all of California; they serve 20,000 children in 30 different countries. Uplift Family Services, founded in 1867, evolved from an orphanage and Chinese rescue mission to California's largest, most comprehensive provider of behavioral health services for children and families. In fact, in 1994, Uplift Family Services became the first agency in California to launch an innovative program called Wraparound. That program, which delivers mental health and trauma related services to children and families, is now mandated in every county in the State of California. Uplift Family Services and its directors have played a vital role in generating community awareness, and facilitating engagement for the communities they serve. In so doing, they assist individuals realize their hopes for behavioral health and emotional well-being. Uplift Family Services' three-part Crisis Continuum of Services serve an average of 200 youth per month and successfully divert 70 percent of the youth from hospitalization. In addition, Uplift Family Services provide Foster Care and Adoption Services to 26 counties in California. Uplift Family Services was awarded the 2016 Agency Community Hero Award by the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Board. Since its inception, Uplift Family Services has helped children and adolescents with complex behavioral challenges recover from trauma, cope with mental health disabilities, and lead happier and fuller lives. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Uplift Family Services, for its 150 years of service and advocacy to children and families in Santa Clara County.