Kayleigh's Law, SCOTUS 9, Stone Slab, Deport Gangs, Trade Crimes, Cong Records

The House Judiciary Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Pursuant to Committee Rule two, House Rule eleven, Clause two, uh the chairman may postpone in further uh proceedings today on the question of approving any measure, or matter, or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize a gentleman from Arizona, Mister Biggs,

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Again, I'm glad.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, one nation, without end, without end, indivisible, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. with liberty and justice for all.

Pursuant to uh notice I call up H R eighty four eighty one, the the Cayley's uh Law Act of twenty twenty six for purposes of mark-up and move to the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.

H R eight four eight one to amend title eighteen, United States Code, to provide for the issue.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mister Biggs, for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to mark up such an impactful piece of legislation. At its core, Cayley's law is about ensuring that victims of some of the most serious crimes do not have to live with the constant fear that their offender may one day contact them again. For many victims, healing is not linear, and the trauma of a crime does not end when a conviction is secured. The possibility of future contact can reopen wounds, undermine a survivor's sense of safety, and make it harder to move forward. That is why this bill provides a straightforward and common sense solution by authorizing lifetime no contact orders for offenders, convicted of serious federal violent, sexual, trafficking, and child exploitation crimes. Under this legislation, offenders are permanently barred from contacting their victims unless the conviction is later invalidated or pardoned. The bill is rooted in a simple principle. Victims deserve lasting protection, and offenders who have committed these heinous acts should not have the ability to reinsert themselves into the lives of those they have harmed. I thank my friend and colleague, Representative Hamadeh, for introducing this legislation, and I acknowledge the presence in the audience today, um, Kaley, for whom this bill was named. Thanks in large part to Kaley's advocacy and the work of supporters first at the state level in Arizona, Wisconsin then became the second state in the nation to enact a version of Kaley's law, providing more victims the opportunity to seek lifetime protection orders against their offenders. Other states, including Texas and Virginia, provide certain forms of long-term or lifetime protective orders. When we had our hearing on this legislation in April, we were honored to hear from Kaylee herself as she shared her experience and her path toward advocacy. And again, we thank you for being here today, Kaylee. Sharing one story is never easy, particularly when it involves painful and deeply personal experiences. After the hearing, I engaged with both Kaylee and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, through robust discussion of how we make a good bill even better. And I am pleased to say we did just that. Thanks to this effort, this version today includes many impactful changes, including adding stocking to the list of offenses covered, strengthening the definition of a crime of violence, and assured all language in the legislation starts and ends with the victim at the center, as all criminal law should. I thank our colleagues across the aisle for their commitment to victims' rights in making this a true bipartisan effort. I extend my sincere thanks to Right on Crime for both their testimony before the subcommittee and for their thoughtful engagement on this legislation. Their expertise and constructive feedback have helped strengthen this bill, so I thank them for your thoughtful engagement through throughout the legislative process. I'm grateful for the collaborative effort that brought us to this point. Ultimately, this bill is victim-centered and prioritizes public safety. Cayley's law helps ensure that our criminal justice system works for victims not against them. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking. A member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and um I uh am very happy to d- strongly support this legislation to strengthen protection for victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Uh, H R eight four eight one, Cayley's law of twenty twenty-six would require federal courts to issue lifetime, no contact orders against defendants who are convicted of certain covered offenses, including child sexual exploitation, sex trafficking, stalking, and sexual abuse upon the request of the consent of the victim. But independent of the criminal case, hundreds of thousands of people live under conditions of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and other kinds of sexual abuse. And this legislation will help them to turn their lives around. According to The National Domestic Violence Hotline, an average of twenty-four people a minute become victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner. In the United States, that's more than twelve million women and men every year. Nationwide, more than one in five women have been raped or subjected to attempted rape. And sixty percent of the rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, a number that increases dramatically for minor victims, going up to ninety-three percent who knew their abuser. The lives of survivors of sexual and domestic violence um are radically altered, even long after the abuse has ended, and many suffer from a wide range of chronic physical and mental health problems. They pay a heavy price financially for medical and therapeutic treatment, lost work and legal expenses, and the weight of these burdens is even greater for survivors who have fewer resources and networks to uh draw upon. In recent years, some states have passed laws to strengthen protections for survivors, often thanks to the advocacy of survivors themselves, like Kaylee Kozak, who was abused by her soccer coach beginning when she was twelve years old. Because of her undaunted advocacy in her home state of Arizona, survivors of sex crimes and other violent crimes may now petition the court in their state for a permanent order of protection against their abusers, totally separate and apart from the criminal case. Other states have enacted similar laws, and I'm proud to say that Maryland is one of them. These laws empower victims and survivors to feel a lot safer and to move forward with their lives it's wonderful that we're advancing a version of Cayley's law that would allow federal courts to issue no contact orders to victor victims and survivors of the worst offenses and it's wonderful that we are doing this on a bipartisan basis and I must say it is a welcome break from the administration's retreat from a strong federal role in supporting victims and survivors. Administration's actions have resulted, as members of this committee know, in the elimination of hundreds of programs that Congress created and funded to address the needs of victims and survivors of some of the very crimes we're talking about here today but I'm very happy that we can join together on this legislation and I strongly support it I yield back to you, Mister Chairman.

Chairman goes back without objection. All of their opening statements will be included in the record. Their chair now recognizes a gentleman from Arizona, offered an amendment in the nature of a substance.

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

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR eight four eight one, offerable.

Without objection, the amendment and the nature of a substitute should be considered as read and shall be considered based text for the purposes of amendment. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Arizona who explained the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment makes both technical and minor substantive changes to the legislation. It first addresses clerical corrections in the bill. The amendment further adds stalking to the list of covered offenses. closes a loophole regarding time of sentencing, strengthens the definition of crimes of violence, and lastly clarifies language to further strengthen victim autonomy throughout the process of attaining the order. These changes were made with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and they are bipartisan in nature, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Arizona.

Mister Chairman, I have an a an amendment at the desk.

Will clerk report the amendment?

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HRA four eight one offered by Mister Biggs of Arizona.

Without objection, the amendment will be considered read. Uh, Mr. Rick Nassar

And Mister Chair, if I could reserve a point of order.

Gentleman reserves a point of order. Uh, the gentleman from Arizona is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment clarifies only violent and sexual crimes or covered offenses under the legislation The amendment also mirrors language in the Arizona statute to assure due process for the defendant upon which the order is served. I urge support for the amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman uh

Will we withdraw?

The gentleman withdraws his point of order. Is there any uh discussion on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona? Seeing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment. Those in favor of adopting the amendment will say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The the motion carries and the amendment is adopted. The question aye aye aye aye The ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman. Request

Mr. Ch- uh, gentleman from Arizona.

Req- Request a roll call.

General requests a a roll call. Uh, clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes aye. Mr. McClintock.

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Klein. mr. gooden mr. van drew mr. nels mr. moore miss hageman miss lee mr. hunt mr. fry

mmm

mr. keiley mr. growthman mr. nott mr. harris mr. ander mr. schmidt Mr. Schmidt votes aye, Mr. Gill. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Aye.

Mr. Raskin votes aye, Mr. Nadler Mr. Nadler votes aye,

Aye.

Miss Lofgren. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes aye, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Miss Ganlin votes aye. Miss Rene Guse. Miss McBath. Miss Ross.

Aye.

Miss Ross votes aye. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye. Mister Garcia. Mister Garcia votes aye. Miss Kamlager-Dove. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman. Miss Crockett. Mister Moore. Mister Moore votes yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Miss Kim Lagerdoft, you are not recorded.

Yes.

Miss Kim Lagerdoft votes yes.

This sucks. Yes, aye

Mr. Gerson votes aye mr. Johnson you're not recorded mr. Johnson votes yay Mister Fry, you are not recorded. Mister Fry votes aye. Miss Lofgren? Miss Lofgren votes yes. Mister Jordan.

Yes.

Mister Jordan, that's yes. Misley? Yes. Misley votes yes. mr. under

am i recorded

you're not recorded

oh it's yes

mr. underwoods yes mister lily are you not recorded mister lily that's i mister gale you're not recorded mister gale that's yes Twenty three.

Second.

Clerk will report.

Mister Chairman, there are twenty three ayes and zero noes.

Vote being twenty three in affirmative and zero in the negative. The ayes have it. The bill is uh passed in order to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will re be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is author. Pursuant to notice, I call up H R eighteen sixty nine, the protecting American industry and labor from International Trade Crimes Act of twenty twenty five, for purposes of mark-up and move that the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.

H R one eight six nine, to strengthen the Department of Justice's

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin of uh for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, while we're waiting on the return of Congressman Issa, uh, I thought I would just um in fact include his opening statement. Mister Chairman and colleagues, US trade policy is a vital tool to protect American businesses and workers, ensure American competitiveness, and achieve our foreign policy objectives. It's not enough merely to have a smart trade policy that puts American workers and businesses first. For US trade policy to be effective, we have to resolutely, resolutely enforce the laws implementing that policy. Today, criminal enterprises and bad actors, predominantly based in the People's Republic of China, are breaking US trade laws with impunity. Trade-based financial crime is a one point six trillion dollar per year problem. For example, in just past decade, law enforcement has identified hundreds of inst- instances of trade fraud, most of which originated in the PRC. Tariff and duty fraud committed by the PRC-based companies alone has been estimated to have cost that, uh, United it has cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue in that time. Not only has the fraudulent deprived us of revenue from tariffs and duties, but has seriously undermined our trade policy. Additionally, in just FY twenty twenty five, US authorities seized over seven point four billion dollars of counterfeit goods, with the PRC accounting for approximately ninety percent of those seizures by value. Those seizures reflect billions of dollars stolen from US businesses and workers, which undermines the trade policies designed to protect them. The scale of Chinese counterfeiting operations shows how much American consumers have been exposed to potentially deadly fake goods, including pharmaceuticals. Since June of twenty twenty-two, law enforcement has also identified nearly one billion dollars worth of goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang and uh Uighur uh autonomous regions. These goods carry significant risk of having been produced by forced labor, and are illegal to import into the United States. We must do more to punish the criminals that are breaking our trade laws and inflicting serious harm to our economy to the tune of over a trillion dollars every year. Only then can we stop the bleeding, protect our citizens, and ensure the continued credibility of U. S. trade policy. H. R. eighteen sixty-nine, the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act of twenty twenty five will establish the structure needed at the Department of Justice to go after criminals who perpetrate trade crimes. These crimes include trade fraud, tariff and duty evasion, illegal smuggling, trade-based money laundering, trafficking in counterfeit goods, and much more. This bill will enable DOJ to dedicate specialized personnel to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. As more crimes are investigated, more criminals are caught, and more prosecutions put those criminals in jail, US trade policy will will better pro- protect Americans and better protect uh the strength to adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party. The importance of these issues to all Americans is clear from the broad bipartisan group of members sponsoring this bill. I want to thank all sponsors for their hard work. as well as hard work by the selected committee on the Chinese Communist Party to put together this excellent legislation. We advanced nearly identical legislation on a bipartisan voice vote last Congress, and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation once again, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chairman will recognize the ranking matter for his statement on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I strongly support this legislation. The bill would create a trade crimes task force within DOD to investigate and or to strengthen our capacity to investigate and prosecute trade related crimes. Trade crimes are an ongoing problem for our people and our businesses. Foreign hackers equip computer chips with spyware and slip them into our stream of commerce, and our businesses market opportunists use unstable materials to create counterfeit batteries that explode and maim some of our unsuspecting e-cigarette users which does not seem like a fair punishment for smoking e-cigarettes, and handbags made with forced Uighur labor, passed off as fair trade materials, make American consumers unwittingly complicit in outrageous human rights crimes. Cyber-intrusions can risk a company's trade secrets. Without their knowledge, they may never even become aware that they were part of a data leak. But a foreign competitor can use the intellectual property to unfairly compete against targeted U. S. companies. The deluge of counterfeits has made it increasingly difficult for prosecutors at DOJ to enforce our laws. This legislation is drafted, would help the government prevent trade loss by creating a task force to identify, investigate, and help prosecute trade crimes that hurt Americans in every industry. This legislation is bipartisan. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on the select committee on China, the House Approves Committee, and the Judiciary Committee for working to carefully negotiate a bill that if properly funded would help the US crack down on foreign entities that try to circumvent our trade laws policing counterfeits that harm American consumers um endanger our national security and destroy billions in profits for US companies is important work. I'm glad we all agree that DOJ prosecutors should focus on keeping our country safe. I support this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance.

German.

Gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment at the desk.

Local report.

Amendment in the nature of

Not objection, amendment in nature of substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purposes of amendment the chair now recognizes gentleman from Wisconsin to explain the amendment.

This amendment in the nature of a substitute updates the year from the title of the bill and strikes the appropriations language in section six. On May thirteenth, the House Committee on Appropriations voted on the fiscal year twenty twenty seven commerce justice science and related agency bill which included the appropriation to address trade crimes within the criminal division of DOJ as a result the appropriation language in the bill is unnecessary and duplicative of the work already done by the house committee on appropriations I urge my colleagues support the amendment and I yield back

Gentleman yields back the general aid from North Carolina is recognized

Um, thank you very much, Mister Chairman. I'm in very strong support of this bill and am a a cosponsor of it. We are working on this issue in North Carolina. As a matter of fact, our Secretary of State has her own division that works on these issues. But they are overwhelmed and they need federal help, particularly when things cross state lines and for in all of this international um really let's just say theft of people's goods and their innovation. And so I commend the bill and I really look forward to seeing it on the floor as soon as possible. Thank you and I yield back.

I mean, generally, the lady yields back. The question is on adoption of the amendment in nature of substitute. Of course, that'll be followed by uh immediately by a vote on reporting of the bill. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. Being the chair of the ayes have it, and the amendment in nature of substitute is adopted. The question is on favor of reporting

Aye.

Aye, sure.

Aye.

I ask for recorded vote.

Oh, uh, those opposed no, and the recorded vote being requested, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Jordan.

Yes.

Mister Jordan votes yes. Mister Issa. Mister Biggs. Mister McClintock.

Aye.

Mister Clintock votes aye. Mister Tiffany. Mister Massey. Mister Roy. Mister Fitzgerald. Mister Fitzgerald votes aye. Mister Klein. Mister Klein votes aye. Mister Gooden. mr. van drew mr. nels mr. moore miss hageman miss lee

ok

mr. hunt

where is that original

mr. fry mr. keilly mr. growthman mr. nott mr. harris mr. harris votes aye mr. onder

mmm ok mmm

mr. schmidt mr. schmidt votes aye mr. gill Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.

Aye.

Mr. Raskin votes aye. Mr. Nadler.

Aye.

Mr. Nadler votes aye. Miss Lofgren. Miss Lofgren votes aye. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Liu. Miss Jayapal. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlon. Miss Scanlon votes aye. Mr. Nguz. Miss McBath. Miss Ross. Miss Ross votes aye, Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes aye, Mister Garcia. Miss Kimlager-Dove. Mister Moskowitz. Mister Goldman.

Yeah.

Miss Crockett.

How am I recorded?

Mister Issa, you are not recorded.

I mean yeah.

Mister Issa votes yes. Mister Gooden votes aye. Mr. Moore.

Yes.

Mr. Moore votes yes.

Um

Mr. Garcia, you're not recorded. Mr. Garcia, you're not recorded. Mr. Garcia votes aye. Miss Kim-Lager-Dove, you are not recorded. Miss Kim-Lager-Dove, that's I.

Daryl, how are you doing? I'm doing fine, sure.

Mister Ba- Mister Biggs votes yes.

Miss

Mister Van Drew,

I'm recording.

you are not recorded.

Yes.

Mister Van Drew votes yes. Mr. Grothman? Mr. Grothman votes aye. mister liu you are not recorded mister liu that's i

I apologize. I it's uh it's uh not every day you have a member come in in wheelchairs. I was checking out Mr. Harris what happened over the weekend. He was in a little accident, uh, and I still thought we were one short. Uh, the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are twenty-three ayes and zeroes.

Um, the bill is approved, the ayes have and the bills ordered to be reported for every to the house members will have two days to submit views, without objection, the bill is reported as a single amendment in nature substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Uh, pursuant to the notice I call up H R one seventy five, the deport alien gang members act for purpose of mark-up remove the committee report it favorably the clerk will report the bill.

H R one seven five.

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read at open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman um the chairman of the subcommittee, uh uh Mr. McClintock from California for an opening statement.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the Biden administration, the Democrats opened our borders to the largest illegal mass migration in history. Uh, this included some of the most violent criminal gangs and cartels in history, which quickly established themselves in our communities and began a reign of crime, that included human trafficking, drug trafficking, vehicular manslaughter, extortion, burglary, robbery, assault, and murder. Today, an estimated ten thousand MS thirteen gang members are loose uh in our country. Trend de Agua is active in at least nineteen states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Tenn- uh uh Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as well as Washington, D. C. The Sheriff of Tulare County, California, testified to our subcommittee that the Palo Alto cartel now operates throughout the state of California, including extensive drug and human trafficking, extortion and even organized execution squads. He estimates that half of the crime he deals with in his rural county involved illegal aliens many serving organized criminal gangs. The toll of this deliberate policy of the Democrats mounts with every news cycle. Despite this carnage, there is no specific provision in law to allow authorities immediately deport members or accomplices of these criminal gangs, and to summarily deny them immigration benefits and admission based on their involvement with these criminal organizations. This bill fills that glaring gap in our nation's defenses. It creates clear grounds of admissibility and deportability for aliens who are members of criminal gangs or who have promoted aided conspired with or participated in gang activities. It provides immigration authorities with the tools necessary to act before these individuals commit additional crimes on American soil rather than waiting until innocent Americans suffer the consequences. This legislation also establishes a clear statutory definition of a criminal gang. The offenses covered under that definition are not minor infractions. They include drug trafficking, firearms offenses, crimes of violence, human trafficking, identity theft, money laundering, alien smuggling, and other serious These are the very activities that fuel organized criminal enterprises and threaten public safety throughout our nation. This bill also requires the detention of gang-affiliated aliens during removal proceedings. This provision reflects a simple reality. Individuals who have demonstrated allegiance to criminal organizations represent a substantial public safety risk and should not be released into our communities while their immigration cases are pending. This closes loopholes that allow gang members to obtain immigration benefits that were never intended to protect violent criminals. Under this legislation, gang members would be ineligible for asylum, temporary protected status, special immigrant juvenile status, and other forms of immigration relief. These humanitarian protections were created to assist vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution or hardship, not to provide safe haven for members of organized criminal enterprises. Now, you've often heard the Democrats argue the existing law is sufficient. Well, if that were true, we would not continue to see criminal gangs of illegal aliens operating in American communities from coast to coast. Now, would we? We would not see local law enforcement agencies struggling with gang-related violence from people with no legal right to be here. We would not see repeated instances in which dangerous individuals evade removal despite clear evidence of their gang affiliation. The President put a simple question to members of Congress during a State of the Union message. "Stand if you believe the United States government should put the needs of American citizens ahead of illegal aliens." Not a single Democrat stood. They keep telling us that they support removing dangerous criminal illegal aliens from our country, while they do everything they possibly can to keep them here, including storming detention facilities, assaulting law enforcement, and defending sanctuary laws that are specifically z- designed to keep criminal, illegal aliens in our communities when the law requires that they be removed. So here's yet another chance for the Democrats to join us in requiring the removal of criminal gang members and their accomplices from our country immediately, and automatically. This restores clarity to the law, strengthens public safety, and reinforces the principle that the United States will not serve as a

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Uh, our colleagues invite us to believe that this legislation is necessary to repair a gaping loophole in our laws permitting alien criminal gang members to freely enter and remain in our country and do their dirty business. and somehow preventing the administration from removing them. If that were true, of course, we would gladly support legislation to close such a dramatic and overlooked loophole. Uh, but despite all of the dramatic rhetoric, that is not remotely the case. If there's anyone who really believes that we can't remove alien criminal gang members from uh the country today, they're too innocent to be let out of the house by themselves. The administration has ample broad authority under our existing immigration laws to deny entry to or remove criminal gang members. Current law already contains numerous provisions ensuring that convicted criminal gang members are deportable and inadmissible. Section two twelve A three A of the INA allows the administration exclude anyone who seeks to enter the United States and intends to engage in any unlawful activity at all. Section two thirty-seven A four A renders deportable any non-citizen who is engaged or is engaged in any criminal activity in Endangering public safety. These provisions obviously provide ample authority to render deportable and admissible any gang member. Um, so, why is the majority bringing forward this legislation when the people it claims to be targeting are already clearly covered by current law? Perhaps it's because this bill would allow the administration to claim it's cracking down on foreign criminal gang members the worst of the worst, without having to offer any real evidence in particular cases. This legislation grants the administration sweeping authority to declare anyone to be a past or present gang member, so long as an officer asserts he has reason to believe that they are a gang member, or once were a gang member. Uh, the outrageous and lawless treatment of people alleged to be gang members has already led to huge miscarriages of uh justice, even without this legislation being passed. Take the case of Herce Reyes Barrios, a thirty-six year old professional, soccer player and coach. He was an asylum seeker from Venezuela, awaiting his asylum hearing, but unbeknownst to his family, he was swept up and flown out of the country, under the Alien Enemies Act, to a torture prison in El Salvador as part of the government's dragnet campaign against Trendelagua. He had no criminal record and no criminal charges were ever filed against him, but he was sent to a dictator's prison in El Salvador because he was simply declared to be a reputed gang member. And why? Because he has a tattoo on his right arm, which was mistakenly associated with the gang. In fact, the tattoo is of a soccer ball topped with a crown, which signifies the soccer club Real Madrid. Take the case of Andre Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist and barber who fled Venezuela's brutal Maduro regime, which was persecuting him simply because of his sexual orientation and because he was against their corrupt government. His asylum claim was pending when he, too, was swept up in the government's campaign because of his benign tattoo of two crowns, one symbolizing his father and one symbolizing his mother. His tattoo for his parents was the only evidence used by the administration to claim that he was a, quote, gang member and then to send him to the infamous torture facility in El Salvador. To this day, the government has never provided any other evidence beyond that tattoo that Andre was actually a gang member. The Trump administration also tried to deport a Venezuelan couple with temporary protective status multiple times, claiming without evidence that they were members or were associated with Trendaragua. Judges threw both of their cases out, with one saying she would have literally thrown administration officials out of her chambers if they'd asked her for an arrest warrant in the case based on the completely weak and pathetic evidence present uh presented. ICE, we learned today, even lies about US citizens. I knew about this case for a while, but they'd not gone public with it. Um, a US citizen from Maryland was arrested by ICE agents in December and held for twenty-five days. This is a US citizen, like the vast majority of the people in this room today, held for twenty-five days despite her offering proof of her citizenship. But they didn't believe her, and she was held, um, for nearly a month, uh, despite all of her protests and her family protests that she was born in the United States. The DHS continually claimed that she was an illegal alien from Mexico. They've not apologized, but they've issued her a passport. She didn't have one, like half of the people, uh, in the United States, half of the US citizens in the United States don't have a passport. So look, judicial frustration with the administration's cavalier attitude towards the rules of evidence and the burden of proof tells us everything we need to know about this new proposal. Judges across America have openly rebuked the administration for systematically lying to them. In court, the conduct of DOJ attorneys has gotten so bad that judges are questioning if this administration is deserving of the long-running presumption of regularity in the operation of governmental law enforcement, if judges can no longer assume that executive branch officials have properly discharge their duties, why would we give them even more wide-open discretion in vague language with which to abuse their government offices? What if the administration's claim that it's taking on drug cartels and going after the worst of the worst, which is why it needs uh this legislation suddenly? Well, turns out that's totally bogus too. President Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez for his crime of helping drug traffickers move hundreds of cocaine, more than eight hundred thousand pounds of cocaine into the United States. The president of Honduras, Hernandez, said that he was gonna stuff it up the nostrils of the gringos. Hernandez was also accused of taking huge bribes from El Chapo

Okay.

and getting millions of dollars from other drug trafficking cartels. Trump, uh, not only pardoned him, um, and, uh, blamed Biden for his harsh treatment, of this global narco-trafficker, but Trump also pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the mastermind behind the dark web platform Silk Road that was used by drug dealers to sell more than two hundred million dollars worth of narcotics online. That guy was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, and yet after Trump pardoned him on day one of his administration, that guy is now back at work, a completely unrepentant criminal, and a threat to public safety. It's difficult to take seriously the argument that suddenly we

Fishing boats. Mm.

Detectable decrease in the amount of cocaine flowing into our country, and federal drug prosecutions are at an all-time low. ISIS dragnet mass deportations have obstructed federal prosecutions of cartel drug smugglers by deporting the witnesses the victims in informants as we've described in our report acquittal by removal. Under this administration, gang members and drug traffickers get pardoned while innocent people are falsely accused of gang membership and sent to torture prisons abroad. We blow up fishermen, decimating the rules of war, and our notions of due process while cocaine

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Like Alex Preddy, brutalizing protesters. Far from targeting the worst of the worst, the administration has detained and deported people who've committed no crimes at all and posed no safety threat and now the majority wants to give them even more power to abuse. This administration has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to accurately identify real gang members. the few guardrails this bill tries to insert are completely inadequate. The definition of a criminal gang in the bill is dangerously broad and loose, and allows the administration to label all sorts of people's gang members without requiring any evidence at all. The bill states a criminal gang is an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes, the commission of a felony drug offense, including simple possession of marijuana. This could mean a group of high school kids who have gathered on the weekend to smoke marijuana could be deemed a criminal gang under the bill. It also includes harboring undocumented people. This provision is not restricted to those in the business of smuggling, but includes anyone who provides shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants, and thus could be read to cover clergy members who provide undocumented immigrants a place to stay. or food for their children, as many of them do. The Catholic Church has come out forcefully against this government's abuse and mistreatment of migrants, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed a similar bill the House the House voted on nine years ago. Would this administration use the powers granted to them by the bill to declare Pope Leo as the leader of a criminal gang for harboring undocumented people Donald Trump has already called the Pope weak on crime. Is this the next step? I oppose this really dangerous bill, which gives the administration broad, loose discretion and authority that it simply cannot be trusted with, as they have demonstrated time and again. I urge our colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman yields back without objection all other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair, now I recognize the gentleman from California offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

not objecting, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment.

Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. The ranking member would rather wait until the MS thirteen gang member, here who's here illegally, uh, rapes, assaults or murders a fellow American, uh, before taking any action.

Point of order, the gentleman is not explaining the in a ma- nature of his substitute students.

Gentleman. Gentleman is recognized. He can explain it the way he wants to explain it.

Thank you. Um. If the individual's an MS thirteen member, that should be enough to insist that they be removed. I mean, if a rattlesnake is curled up in your bedroom, would you wait to remove it until it strikes? Or would you get it out of your bedroom before it can harm you or your family? That's the fundamental question here. There's a there's a new term of it called suicidal empathy. It describes virtue signaling that is so naive that it invites actual harm. And I want to thank the ranking member for illustrating that disorder in real life. Um, as to the amendment, uh, it s- makes a small change in the short title of the bill. It expands the immigration relief ine- ineligibilities. It makes technical changes to the TPS provision, criminal gang definition, mandatory detention provision, and withholding of removal provision. Adds, uh, crimes such as kidnapping and racketeering to the criminal gang definition, and makes technical changes to the grounds of it, admissibility and deportation. And with that I yield back.

The gentleman yields back.

Mr. Chairman.

The g- the gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I start out by uh uh endorsing everything the ranking members said. But I'll go a little more specifically. One. If it is made here a crime to uh be a member of a d- uh a a gang, the bill doesn't require conviction. How can you uh uh act on someone uh based on the allegation that he's committed a crime, namely being a gang member, without convicting him in a court of law of that crime? So no evidence need be given that he is a uh uh member of a gang. Somebody simply may uh must assert it. This is about the most un-American thing I can think of. since the Bill of Rights was enacted in seventeen ninety one. Second point. Talking about the strikes in the Pacific. They are murder. Murder is straight and simple. What was wrong with our old policy? If you suspected a boat of having nar- of h- h- having narcotics, the Po- Coast Guard intercepted that boat and inspected it. If there were c- narcotics on it, arrested the occupants, uh confiscated the narcotics, and if there were no narcotics, tip their hat and said, " Go on your way." Instead, with no evidence whatsoever, the president orders that people, that boats be uh uh um um destroyed, and the people on them killed. This is murder, pure and simple. There is no doubt in my mind that the president in the next administration should be prosecuted for murder, But unfortunately, the uh Supreme Court decision on in in the Trump case that said that a president cannot be questioned for anything his official duties, precludes that. But I have no doubt that in the next administration, uh, Pete Hexeth should be and will be prosecuted and convicted of murder. I yield back.

Well, well, could uh could uh the gentleman yield?

I'll give it to the gentleman.

Thank you. Uh, thank you for your your comments, Mr. Nadler. Um, the the destruction of those alleged gunboat uh drug boats in the Pacific uh have nothing to do with war. As you point out, we're not at war. There's been no declaration of war. I know that Donald Trump doesn't think he needs a declaration of war, but they weren't even asserting these were acts of war. So what were they? As you were saying, that was just lethal violence administered against people without any kind of due process at all. Right? So we appointed ourselves not just the officers, but the. the judges, and then the jury, uh, l- laying down a death sentence against the people who were on the boats, whoever they were, whether they were involved in drugs or not. It could be a case of mistaken identification. That's what due process is all about. The last time we discussed this, I remember one of my colleagues said to me, well, you're not for due process for guilty people, are you? That's the whole point. We don't know if they're guilty until they've had due process. That's why those are about the two most beautiful words in the Constitution, if not the two most beautiful words in the English language. If you think the government is infallible, which is not something I usually hear from my friends on this side of the aisle, although I do hear it increasingly more under Donald Trump, but if you think the government is infallible, then great, you don't need due process. If you think the government can make mistakes, and government officials and officers and prosecutors can make mistakes, then you need due process. That's why the framers built it into the Constitution. And so this legislation is a further part of exactly what the gentleman from New York is describing, which is a demolition of our basic ideas of due process. Now, it's enough simply to label somebody a member of a gang, which can be any kind of club or organization or association that has ever advanced one criminal aim, including smoking marijuana, uh, or, look, I mean, we got a president of the United States who's convicted of fraud. Is fraud one of those? I don't know if fraud is in there, Could that be a criminal gang? I mean, come on, let's walk our way back from this intense uh attempt to uh give the government complete and total discretion to do whatever it wants. It leads to situations where totally innocent people are put into solitary confinement, or pinned up against other prisoners in torture facilities around the world. And I wanna thank the gentleman for his his point.