Community Safety and Security Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I must oppose the so-called Community Safety and Security Act. This highly flawed bill is an example of why regular order and a meaningful, deliberative process is essential to the proper crafting of legislation.

Last April, the Supreme Court, in Sessions v. Dimaya, ruled that a portion of the criminal code's definition of criminal violence is unconstitutionally vague. That was nearly 6 months ago.

The Judiciary Committee has had ample time to examine the decision, to hold hearings, to gather input from a range of stakeholders, and to carefully develop legislation through markup and regular order--but none of those things have happened.

Instead, a bill with significant ramifications for criminal law in immigration cases was introduced just last week while Members were out of town and is being rushed to the floor today without any hearings, without any markup, without any adequate opportunity for review by the public, by legal experts, or by stakeholders. So it is not a surprise that we are left with many unanswered questions and concerns about the impact of the bill.

The term ``crime of violence'' is referred to throughout the criminal code and is, for example, used to determine whether a juvenile may be prosecuted as an adult in Federal court. It also has serious implications in immigration law because a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony, described under the Immigration and Nationality Act to include a crime of violence under this section, is deportable and would be denied the opportunity for certain discretionary relief from removal.

If we do not define this term properly, it could have significant adverse consequences. H.R. 6691 specifies a long list of offenses that would be considered crimes of violence, some of which are not currently included in the Federal criminal code. The bill further defines some of the offenses that are in the code, adding layers of confusion to the bill.

We need proper definitions. For example, the crime of fleeing is identified as a crime of violence. Now, if by fleeing you mean that, when the cop pulls you over, you hit the gas and flee at 100 miles per hour, endangering anybody on the road, that is a crime of violence. But if by fleeing it is meant that you don't pull over immediately because you are looking for a safe place to stop, well, that probably shouldn't be a crime of violence, and yet, in this bill, it seems to be.

We should carefully examine all of these offenses to determine which are appropriate to be included in this definition, and we should consider what the consequences will be for each one.

In writing for the majority in Dimaya, Justice Kagan noted that:

A host of issues respecting the definition of ``crime of violence'' application to specific crimes divide the Federal appellate courts.

Although Congress has the power to clarify the definition or to establish a new one, as this bill would do, it is absolutely essential that we consider carefully what offenses should be included.

Indeed, in considering a change to the definition of ``crime of violence'' for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines, the United States Sentencing Commission held a hearing and received testimony. It also sought public comments in response to proposed revisions. At a minimum, we should do the same.

Finally, I note that, even in the brief time since the bill has been introduced, a week, a broad array of advocates have expressed opposition to this bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the additional time.

Others opposing the bill are Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Immigrant Justice Network, the Immigrant Defense Project, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and others. Such opposition should, at the very least, tell us that we should not be considering this legislation without thoughtful deliberation.

This bill is a perfect example of a bill whose topics should be covered, but we could do it properly instead of having a sloppily drafted bill that does things we don't know it does and doesn't do things we think it does. We must have a hearing. We should have testimony. We should carefully consider this bill, and then we should pass some version of it.

For those reasons, I oppose passage of this version of this bill, and I ask that we take the time to examine this issue through regular order.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source