Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this amendment. The government conducts 702 searches and broadly defines foreign intelligence investigations that may have no nexus to national security, and we are using this database for just criminal investigations that are domestic. When you say ``incidental collection,'' it sounds like it is not much. Well, the fact is it is a huge amount of data in its content. What this amendment says is: if you are going to search for the information of an American who has been collected in that database and it is not terrorism but domestic criminal investigation, get a warrant. Get a warrant. That is what the Fourth Amendment requires. Now, I took exception to the comment that 702 would go dark. We know that this existing FISA order goes through April, so the 702 program is not going dark. We have time to do this right. We have time to make sure that the Fourth Amendment is adhered to in the reauthorization of 702. Put the ``foreign'' back in the FISA bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to respond. The NSA will not go dark, and I think it is important that we understand that. We are collecting the content of phone calls, emails, text messages, videos, pictures of Americans, putting it in a database and querying it, searching it without a probable cause warrant. That is the state today, and that will continue until reform is done. It will not go dark. I thought it was important to make that clear. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I know he wanted to yield to my colleague from the Judiciary Committee, to have the chance to clarify that.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner for the reasons he has outlined that this bill should not become law. However, I am also speaking in favor of the Amash amendment that has been put in order that would fix the problems that he has so eloquently outlined. Before 702 was enacted into law, the NSA and the FBI would need to get a probable cause warrant to collect this information. We made a major change that allows this information to be collected when a foreigner is communicating with an American, and when you go to the ``abouts'' collection, which the underlying bill would codify, even when that doesn't occur, when there is merely discussion of a foreigner. That is not what I think our Constitution requires. And we did not outsource to the judicial branch or the executive branch the decision on what the Constitution requires us to do. Now, we have learned that there is a vast amount of information being collected--we can't go into the details of that in an open session, just that we have been told by Admiral Rogers the scope of this--and that the database that is so-called incidentally collected because of the architecture of the internet could be searched for Americans without a warrant is not consistent with the protections outlined in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Amash amendment, which is basically the USA RIGHTS Act, ends these backdoor searches by requiring a warrant. It ends reverse targeting. It bans the ``abouts'' collection and prohibits the collection of domestic communications, prevents the misuse of information on Americans, and is something that we should support. Now, in a letter to the Senate in October, a coalition of groups said this: The USA RIGHTS Act, which is essentially the Amash amendment, is markedly superior to all current legislative proposals to reauthorize section 702. Who said that? The American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks, the NAACP, but also the Project On Government Oversight, and Color of Change. This is a broad, left-right coalition that has come together, even though there are many things we disagree on, because we agree on one thing: When we took an oath to defend the Constitution on our first day of this session, we didn't take that oath to defend the Constitution when it is convenient or when we feel like it. No. We took that oath to defend the Constitution every day, in every way, and with every bill. And without the Amash amendment, this bill falls short. Just a note on where we are in the timing. It is true that this has been delayed, I would say unconscionably delayed, for this proceeding. But we have more time than has been suggested. Under the existing act, it provides that, if there is an existing order from the FISA court, that order remains in effect even if the underlying bill lapses. We have an order that extends into late April. So we have a deadline, but it is not this week and it is not next week. We owe it to our constituents and we owe it to our obligation to the Constitution to get this right. When Jim Sensenbrenner, who is someone whom nobody is going to question his conservative credentials, and when Judge Poe, Zoe Lofgren, and Jerry Nadler come to the same agreement on the Constitution, I would hope that our colleagues would listen. Vote for the Amash amendment, and, if it does not pass, vote against the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, for us women who have been victims of assault or harassment, this is a very serious, serious matter. I intend to vote for this bill today. But, as has been mentioned, it is just a first step. We know on the House Administration Committee that we are going to have to dig in and make sure that the training that is referred to in this bill is a lot better than what we have right now. It is deficient. I would like to say also that the process that we have for victims to come forward is an embarrassment. It needs to be refined, reviewed, and fixed from the point of view of the victim. Here in America, every day we open our news feed and we see someone else who has been fired because of engaging in sexual harassment misconduct. It is part of, really, a component of devaluing women. That is what this is about. I heard my colleague from the House Administration Committee mention the columnist who said that the sexual harassment racket is over. I am afraid it isn't. Not yet. But it is our obligation to make sure that it does end. We are the House of Representatives. It should be expected of us that we take the lead, that we set the standard for how women can be valued in the workplace. I think this first step is valuable, but if we had to walk a mile, this is a foot. I am happy to support this measure, but I am looking forward to working with Mr. Brady, who has been such a leader, and the committee. We have had a bipartisan effort with the chairman of the committee. We have got a lot of work to do, and I look forward to doing it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Jim McLoughlin, an outspoken advocate for working families for over forty years. The San Antonio Redevelopment Plan's twelve story tower located in the heart of downtown San Jose, constructed in 1975 and 1976 thanks in large part to his efforts, will be renamed in Jim's honor. Jim first joined Local 428 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (then the Retail Clerks International Association) in 1937 as a clerk at Piggly Wiggly. A quick learner and a natural leader, he was elected to lead Local 428 that same year. His leadership continued for the next forty-three years, during which time Jim expressed solidarity for his brethren in labor throughout the world by serving as a trade union delegate to labor organizations in China, Argentina, Israel, Iceland and Sweden. Jim dedicated his life to organizing and civic engagement. He was a member of the Committee on Political Education and the AFL-CIO for over forty years. He participated on various state task forces, including Governor Pat Brown's Committee on Automation and Employment in 1958, the Industrial Commission-Mercantile Wage Board in 1972 and the California Attorney General's Volunteer Advisory Council in 1973. Serving as Vice President among the 1.5 million members in the California Labor Federation from 1972 to 1980, Jim made a substantial impact for a generation of working families in California. Committed to social justice, Jim became a lifetime member of the NAACP in 1955 and was a delegate to the Labor Assembly for Peace in Vietnam in 1967. He served on the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee for over twenty years and acted as a McGovern delegate on behalf of Northern California Labor at the Democratic National Convention in 1972. Jim advocated for ``guaranteed employment rights, wages, and benefits which match the cost of living to enable workers to be a force and active contributors in the communities.'' His worldview that the treatment of workers is critical to the wellbeing of the community remains as relevant now as it was in Jim's time. I am proud to have been Jim's friend, and thankful for the many ways in which Jim advocated for workers in California and throughout the world.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber must act to protect DREAMers now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end the DACA program. DACA recipients are rigorously vetted. They are high-contributing young people who were brought to this country as children. They are cherished members of communities across the country, and they are as American as any of us in all but their paperwork. President Trump's decision to end the program means that these inspiring young people stand to lose their futures. Soon they will be forced out of work and school, faced with the specter of deportation to nations many of them have no memory of. The President has created a moral emergency for our country. This House must allow a vote on a clean Dream Act. It is a bipartisan bill that gives these young people a real opportunity to get right with the law and earn a path to legal permanent residence. We all know that if this bill were put on the floor, it would pass. The bill deserves a vote. There is no doubt about the public support. Recent polls from CNN and ABC show that 82 to 86 percent of the American public supports Dream Act-type legislation; 82 to 86 percent. There is almost no issue we work on that has that much support from the American public.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Jimmy Panetta, I rise today to acknowledge Housing Choices Coalition for persons with Developmental Disabilities (Housing Choices). This organization was founded in 1997 with the goal of creating quality, affordable housing opportunities for people with developmental disabilities in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties. Because of the lack of affordable and inclusive housing choices for people with developmental disabilities, Housing Choices was launched with the mission of enhancing the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities. Their hope was to relieve the segregation sometimes experienced by adults in restrictive residential facilities. Housing Choices partnership model of permanent supportive housing for people with developmental disabilities seeks to work with local jurisdictions and housing developers to secure long-term commitments of rental units in new affordable housing properties for people with developmental disabilities. Residents are then assisted in maintaining their housing with an onsite Resident Coordinator. This housing model promotes integration of people with developmental disabilities in typical affordable housing communities. Since 2002, Housing Choices has provided housing advice to 3,000 people with developmental disabilities. They further support housing stability for residents by providing on-site resident support services for hundreds of people. Housing Choices' approach has helped over 1,000 people with developmental disabilities annually navigate entry points into the community's supply of affordable rental housing properties. Housing Choices helps residents with developmental disabilities understand and comply with lease terms and property rules to prevent evictions. They accomplish this by helping to resolve problems with neighbors, roommates, and property managers. Housing Choices sponsors regular workshops and social events for residents. This helps foster leadership among tenants By fostering understanding and respect they also help create supportive communities of friends and neighbors to further integrate residents into their community. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring HCC for twenty years of extraordinary leadership and advocacy in the community of San Jose and for persons with disabilities globally.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that this bill was indeed part of the Davis-Oliver Act which did go through the Judiciary Committee. But that bill was over 200 pages long. It had many problems. It was impossible to address all the problems. We would be there for a month if we had gone through line by line. It was not a good process. If it had been perfect, I would note that Chairman Goodlatte would not have had to have his amendment to remove the reason-to-believe standard that was in the bill that was part of the Davis-Oliver Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an analysis entitled: ``Harboring: Overview of the Law,'' prepared by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. [From the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.] Harboring: Overview of the Law The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits individuals from concealing, shielding, or harboring unauthorized individuals who come into and remain in the United States. Under the law it is a criminal offense punishable by a fine or imprisonment for any person who: knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. INA Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the ``harboring provision'' or ``Section 1324 (a)'']. The Harboring Prohibition Applies to Everyone The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 538 U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d 1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). What Are the Elements of Harboring? To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the government must prove the following in most jurisdictions ``(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored, or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, and (4) the defendant's conduct tended to substantially facilitate the alien remaining in the United States illegally.'' Shum, 496 F.3d at 391-392 (quoting United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F 3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 546 U.S. 1097 (2006)). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has rejected the fourth element asserting that the phrase ``conduct tending substantially to facilitate'' is a judicial addition to the statute that is unnecessary for a conviction because the statute requires no specific degree of assistance. United States v. Xiang Hui Ye, 588 F.3d 411, 415-416 (7th Cir. 2009). What Actions Constitute Harboring? Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish the ``harboring'' of undocumented individuals, it never defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes ``harboring'' has been left to the courts. As shown below, the federal courts have not settled on one uniform definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have adopted their own definition of ``harboring.'' Harboring is conduct that substantially facilitates an immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally and that prevents the authorities from detecting the individual's unlawful presence (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) Harboring includes affirmative conduct such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about impending investigations that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in the United States. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit) Harboring is conduct tending to substantially facilitate an immigrant's remaining in the U.S. illegally (U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) Harboring is conduct that clandestinely shelters, succors, and protects improperly admitted immigrants. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) Harboring is conduct that provides or offers a known undocumented individual a secure haven, a refuge, a place to stay in which authorities are unlikely to be seeking him. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) Harboring is conduct that affords shelter to undocumented individuals. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) Explanation of Harboring Through Case Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit In the influential case, United States v. Lopez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went through the legislative history of the harboring provision and stated that the term harbor ``was intended to encompass conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's `remaining in the United States illegally,' provided that the person charged has knowledge of the immigrant's unlawful status.'' 521 F.2d 437, 441 (2d Cir 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995 (1975). In this case, Mr. Lopez owned at least six homes in Nassau County, New York, where he operated safe havens for undocumented individuals. Mr. Lopez knew that the people staying in his homes were undocumented. Each person paid Mr. Lopez $15 per week to live in his houses. In many cases, people received the address for a particular house before they left their home countries, and, upon crossing the border illegally, they proceeded directly to the house. Mr. Lopez also helped these individuals obtain jobs by completing work applications and transporting them to and from work. He arranged sham marriages for many so that they could appear to be in the U.S. in lawful status. With a warrant, immigration authorities searched six of Lopez's homes and found twenty- seven undocumented individuals. He was charged with harboring illegal immigrants. Mr. Lopez argued that the mere providing of shelter to undocumented immigrants does not constitute harboring. Id. at 439. He argued that to constitute harboring the conduct must be part of the process of smuggling immigrants into the U.S. or facilitating the immigrants' illegal entry into the U.S. Id. The circuit court noted that he essentially argued that to constitute harboring the sheltering would have to be provided either clandestinely or for the purposes of sheltering the immigrants from the authorities. Id. The Second Circuit rejected these arguments. It held that the statute criminalizes conduct that tends substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally. Id. at 441. The circuit court found that Mr. Lopez's conduct did just that. It pointed out that Mr. Lopez had a large number of undocumented immigrants living at his houses; they obtained the addresses and, upon entering the U.S., proceeded to those houses; Mr. Lopez provided transportation for them to and from work; and, he helped arrange sham marriages. Id. The Second Circuit did not require that Mr. Lopez provide the shelter clandestinely nor that he shield the illegal immigrants from detection by immigration authorities Id. The case of United States v. Kim also is instructive on the meaning of harboring. 193 F.3d 567 (2d Cu 1999). It states that harboring within the meaning of Section 1324(a) ``encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting [the immigrant's] unlawful presence.'' Id. at 574. In this case, Mr. Myung Ho Kim owned and operated a garment-manufacturing business called ``Sewing Masters'' in New York City. He employed a number of undocumented workers, including Nancy Fanfar. During the course of her employment, Mr. Kim instructed Ms. Fanfar to bring in new papers with a different name that would indicate that she had work authorization. He instructed Ms. Fanfar to change her name and remain in his employ a second time, even while he was being investigated by immigration authorities. According to the circuit court, Mr. Kim's actions constituted harboring, for they were designed to help Ms. Fanfar remain in his employ and to prevent her continued presence from being detected by the authorities. Thus, his conduct substantially facilitated her ability to remain in the U.S. illegally in prohibition of the harboring provision. Id. at 574-575. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit The Third Circuit also has considered what conduct constitutes ``shielding,'' ``harboring,'' and ``concealing'' within the meaning of Section 1324(a). Like the Second Circuit, it determined that these terms encompass conduct ``tending to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally'' and [that] prevent[s] government authorities from detecting the alien's unlawful presence. ``U.S. v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Delno-Mocci v. Connolly Props, 672 F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir. 2012), U.S. v. Cuevas-Reyes, 572 F.3d 119, 122 (3d Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993, 1003 (3d Cir. 2008). In United States v. Ozcelik, the defendant knew that the individual remained in the U.S. illegally and advised him to ``lay low'' and ``stay away'' from the address he had on file with the government. 527 F.3d at 100. However, Mr. Ozcelik did not actively attempt to intervene or delay an impending immigration investigation and the Third Circuit held that advising an individual without legal status to stay out of trouble and to keep a low profile does not tend substantially to facilitate their remaining in the country. Id. at 100-01. The circuit court reasserted that shielding or harboring a person without status ordinarily includes affirmative conduct such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about impending investigations that facilitates a person's continuing illegal presence in the United States. See Id. at 99. In United States v. Silveus, the Third Circuit held that cohabitation, along with reasonable control of premises during an immigration agent's inquiry regarding the whereabouts of the suspected undocumented individual, does not constitute harboring without sufficient evidence that a defendant's conduct substantially facilitated the individual's remaining in the U.S. illegally and prevented authorities from detecting his/her unlawful presence. 542 F.3d at 1002-04. In this case, the agent never saw the suspected undocumented individual, but only heard the apartment door slam, heard some bushes break, and as he approached, saw the defendant shut her front door. Id. at 1002. The defendant spoke to the agent through her window and when asked if anybody had run out of her apartment, she said ``I don't know.'' Id. at 1003. The circuit court determined that the act of shutting a door as an agent rounded the corner and her subsequent reply to the agent's question did not establish ``harboring'' under Section 1324(a) because it only led to speculation as to the suspect's presence. Id. at 1004. In United States v. Cuevas-Reyes, the Third Circuit reaffirmed that shielding an undocumented person includes affirmative conduct (such as providing shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false documents, or warnings about impending investigations) that facilitates the person's continuing illegal presence in the U.S. 572 F.3d at 122. The circuit court held that the defendant's actions (taking undocumented people from the U.S. to the Dominican Republic in his private plane) were undertaken for the purpose of removing them from the U.S., not helping them remain in the U.S. Id. It noted that the goal of Section 1324 is to prevent undocumented individuals from entering or remaining illegally in the U.S. by punishing those that shield or harbor. Id. It asserted that punishing a defendant for helping individuals without legal status leave the U.S. would be contrary to that goal. Id. More recently, the Third Circuit reiterated that ``harboring'' requires some act that obstructs the government's ability to discover the undocumented person and that it is highly unlikely that landlords renting apartments to people lacking lawful status could, without more, satisfy the court's definition of harboring. Delrio-Mocci, 672 F.3d at 246 (citing Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223 (3d Cir 2010)). The circuit court reiterated that ``[r]enting an apartment in the normal course of business is not in and of itself conduct that prevents the government from detecting an alien's presence.'' Id. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit The Fifth Circuit's definition of harboring is broader than the Second and Third Circuits. It rejects the notion that to be convicted of harboring a defendant's conduct must be part of a smuggling operation or involve actions that hide immigrants from law enforcement authorities. See De Jesus- Batres, 410 F.3d at 162 (specific intent is not an element of the offense of harboring). An early Fifth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1977), remains informative. In Cantu, immigration agents visited the restaurant owned by Mr. Cantu because they received information that he was employing undocumented workers. The agents wanted to question the employees. Mr. Cantu refused admission to his restaurant until they could provide a warrant. While the immigration authorities waited outside for the warrant, Mr. Cantu made arrangements with at least two of his patrons to drive some of his undocumented employees into town. Mr. Cantu also arranged for his employees to sit in the restaurant and then leave the restaurant like customers. As the employees left the restaurant, the immigration agents approached them and questioned them about their immigration status. The agents determined their illegal status and arrested them. Mr. Cantu argued that, because he did not instruct his employees to ``hide,'' and because the employees left the restaurant in full view of the officers, he could not be charged with shielding immigrants from detection. He also argued that his actions were not connected to any smuggling activity. The Fifth Circuit, relying on the Second Circuit's Lopez decision, rejected these arguments, and determined that Mr. Cantu's actions--instructing the employees to act like customers so they could evade arrest--tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally. Id. at 1180. In another Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1981), the court cited to Lopez to assert that the harboring statute prohibits ``any conduct which tends to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally.'' Id. at 459. Mr. Varkonyi provided a group of undocumented immigrants with steady employment at his scrap metal yard six days a week as well as lodging at his warehouse. On previous occasions, he had instructed and aided the men in avoiding detection and apprehension. On the day of their detention, Mr. Varkonyi interfered with Customs and Border Protection agents' actions by forcibly denying them entry to his property through physical force. Here, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct went well beyond mere employment and thus constituted harboring. Id. at 459. In this case, the court pointed out that Mr. Varkonyi knew of the immigrants' undocumented status, he had instructed the immigrants on avoiding detection on a prior occasion; he was providing the immigrants with employment and lodging, he interfered with immigration agents to protect the immigrants from apprehension; and he was partly responsible for the escape of one of the immigrants from custody. Id. Given these facts, the circuit court found that Mr. Varkonyi's conduct, both before and after the detention of the immigrants, was calculated to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. unlawfully. Id. at 460. In 2007, the Fifth Circuit ruled in another employment harboring case that ``substantially facilitate'' means to make an individual's illegal presence in the United States substantially ``easier or less difficult.'' United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 392 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The court noted that Section 1324(a) was enacted to deter employers from hiring unauthorized individuals and it refused to adopt a narrow definition of ``substantially facilitate'' that undermines Congress's purpose. Id. In this case, Mr. Shum was vice-president of an office- cleaning company and he employed janitors without legal status. According to witnesses, he provided false identifications to the workers to facilitate background checks so that the workers could clean government office buildings.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of closing comments on this bill. I think it is a given that every Member of this body wants to do something about gangs. I have gangs in my district. I think I heard Mr. King speak so passionately about the problem in his district. It is a pervasive problem. The concern is that this bill goes far beyond targeting those gangs. That is why we, with great reluctance, have to say we can't do this. We can't do this. If we wanted to target just the gangs, we wouldn't have included language that would allow charging people who are not gang members as gang members. We wouldn't have included provisions that the victims of gangs would be denied asylum. Section 2(f) of the bill denies individuals who are suspected of alleged gang membership the opportunity to apply for asylum. Here is the problem. In certain parts of Central America, you have rampant gang activity. Women and girls are terribly abused. They are beaten, turned into sex slaves, tattooed, and they escape. If that young girl who has been the victim of that violence from gangs comes with the tattoos, the brand that that gang put on her, and if she, as a consequence, is reasonably suspected of being a member of the gang, she can't get asylum. That is not what we want in the fight against MS-13. The bill is not drafted adequately. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been mentioned that there are terrible activities being undertaken by gang members. I don't think there is any dispute in this body about that. Our obligation is to craft bills that will allow for remedies for that problem in a specific, targeted, and effective way. I think this bill falls far short in that regard. We had mentioned earlier the great concern that has been expressed to us by religious people across the United States about the provisions relative to harboring. Five nuns on a religious worker visa who help provide sanctuary for an undocumented person is a gang under this bill. They are not MS-13. We could craft a measure that avoids that outcome while still going after MS-13. We didn't do that. For one thing, we didn't actually sit down, both sides of the aisle, to work together, to reason together, to make that happen. I would like to note that the smuggling issue is a big problem. We have unanimous agreement on the smuggling issue. We have worked together, actually, with the Wilberforce Act and other acts in a bipartisan way to deal with that. But we didn't bifurcate smuggling from harboring in this bill. That is why the nuns and the Catholic bishops have contacted us asking us not to support this bill. I would like to note, just finally, that the first obligation that we have is to keep America safe. We fail to do that if we craft language that really is just part of a broad deportation agenda under the guise of an antigang bill. There is great concern that is what has happened here. One of the elements that is referenced as a predicate for gang activity--the five people who are working together--is that documents are false. A lot of people are highly agitated when undocumented people have false documents. Opinions differ. Almost every undocumented person in the United States who works has a fake ID; otherwise, they can't get a job. You can agree with that, you can think it is terrible, you can think it is maybe not so terrible. I think most of us would agree it is not MS-13. Why would we craft this in such a way to treat that activity as an MS-13 activity and to blow up all the procedures we have in place to make sure that justice is done? I hope that Members will vote against this bill. Despite the name, it goes far beyond attacking gangs. It would drift into allowing for the deportation of religious people and others who have done nothing related to gang activity. I hope that, if this bill is defeated, we can sit down, as we often have on various items and worked collaboratively on patent reform and other issues, and do the same on this. I hope, if this bill is defeated, we will take the opportunity to do that. I, for one, pledge my best efforts to come up with a measure that is targeted and effective. This bill, unfortunately, is not. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3697. Gang members and serious criminals should not be granted admission to the United States. That is not a controversial position. I think almost every Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, agrees with that. It is our highest priority to protect the safety of the American people. That is a duty I think we all take seriously, but this bill does something other than that. The title of the bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, and, as we have seen in the past, there are times when the name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual proposed language of the statute, and that is true in this case. First, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gang as ``an ongoing group, club, organization, or association of five or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of one or more'' of a wide range of offenses. This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed. These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member--for example, one of the offenses relates to the harboring of undocumented immigrants. This statute includes people who give shelter to, transport, or provide other kinds of aid to undocumented immigrants. That means that, under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang. This isn't just theoretical. During the 1980s, members of the faith community were repeatedly criminally prosecuted for providing transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one case, the FBI even infiltrated a Bible study group to learn about the group's plan to support undocumented immigrants. Under this bill, DHS would have expanded authority to go after all such groups as criminal gangs. In one fell swoop, it could turn nuns into gang members. The bill also refers to felony drug offense, which would include the repeated possession of marijuana. In California, my State, along with several other States, voters decided to decriminalize marijuana--first, for medical uses, then later for broader uses. Under this bill, a group that regularly gets together to use marijuana that is legal under State law would still be committing a felony under Federal law and would be a criminal gang. That could include groups of people who are using marijuana for medicinal purposes to treat epilepsy or cancer who are taking marijuana consistent with State law. Second, the bill authorizes DHS to deny admission or to deport any immigrant, including one who has no criminal history or gang affiliation whatsoever, so long as DHS merely believes the person is associated with such a group. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill expressly authorize DHS officers and immigration judges to deport an immigrant on nothing more than a reason to believe that the individual has been a member of a gang or has participated in the activities of a gang as defined under these rather broad provisions. There is no need for conviction or even an arrest. All DHS needs is a belief that the individual has assisted any group of five or more people that DHS believes has committed one of these long list of offenses. This belief could be as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, or the individuals in their family. This is not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Chairman Goodlatte had a self-actualizing amendment when the rule was adopted to change the evidentiary standard. I think it recognizes the problem with the bill. The amendment really doesn't cure the problem with the breadth of the criminal gang definition, and it doesn't change the standard that applies to people seeking admission to the country, including those who are seeking to reunite with U.S. citizen spouses, parents, and children. Just this week, I met with actual police officers who asked me to do what I could to defeat this unwise bill. They know, because they are out on the front lines, that gangs are a real problem, and they told me that bills like this, which could turn religious individuals, nuns, cancer victims into targets, is just going to get in their way as police officers. If we want to keep America safe and admit immigrants who do not have a felony record, I would suggest that we consider the bipartisan Dream Act, H.R. 3440. This bill would provide a path to legal permanent residence for 800,000 young people who were raised in America, who consider this to be their home, who represent the very best of our country. Instead of debating whether we should allow ICE officers to target religious workers, we should focus on what really makes this country great. I would like to note that there has been much discussion about the drafting of this bill, and at the Rules Committee just last night, Republicans defended the bill by asserting that the broad provisions would not be abused by ICE officers. Even if they could target the nuns, they wouldn't do that. Even if they could target the cancer victims or the teenagers smoking marijuana after school as gang members, they wouldn't do that. Now, I am not suggesting that the teenagers smoking marijuana after school is a good thing. But it is not MS-13. And that is what we are trying to make a distinction here between, a gang abatement bill and garden-variety activity that we may not like. One really very good and very thoughtful Member on the other side of the aisle suggested that, if there is a problem with the bill, we will just come back and fix it. Here is why that is a problem: We know that when we draft something in a poor manner, it often goes on to be enforced and we never get around to fixing it. I will give an example. We passed years ago, and I objected at the time--Henry Hyde was chairman of the committee--a provision that barred people from gaining status if they provided material support to terrorists. Well, that sounds like a good idea, but what does it mean? It turns out that material support--which was never qualified to include support given under duress or given in the ordinary course of a commercial activity--has now been used to bar people who are not terrorists, who didn't give material support. I will give you an example. A group of women called the Tortilla Terrorists are women who were threatened with their lives and made tortillas because they were threatened with death by guerrilla actors. Now, they were denied asylum because of the tortillas, hence the name the Tortilla Terrorists. I think most of us would agree that is not terrorism. Yet, we drafted the bill in such a way that the Department felt that they had to enforce it in that way, and we have never gone back to it. So to think that somehow if we write a law poorly, it is going to be fixed in the administration, that is just wrong. We should step back from this. We should work together. This was just introduced last week. Now, I know the SAFE Act had hearings years ago, but I think we would be better off if we sat down together, if we reasoned together, if we worked through the defects in this draft, and came up with a bill that really targeted MS-13 members, something that we could all support and that well-served our country. I will just say that Sister Simone Campbell, one of the leading nuns in America, explained her opposition to this bill. She said: The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. This statute has been used against religious workers in the past, and the bill tries to make it a weapon for the future. Let's listen to the nuns like we did in school, and step back, redraft this bill, and oppose this poorly crafted measure today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. In this legal analysis by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., it does point out that religious persons have been prosecuted and convicted for providing sanctuary. Opinions may differ on whether that is a good idea or bad idea, but to say that that is an MS-13 activity, I think we would all agree that is just crazy. That is what this bill would do. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), a freshman Member of the House whom we are so fortunate to have. Just last year, as the chief of police, she was on the front line in the fight against gangs.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the bill also refers to felony drug offenses. That includes, actually, use of drugs repeatedly that is lawful in the State where it has been approved, but still unlawful under Federal law. That means, for example, in California, the voters of California first approved medical marijuana, and then marijuana more broadly. Groups of cancer patients take marijuana, and also epilepsy sufferers, to assist in their medical condition. Under this bill, those individuals who are repeatedly using marijuana in groups of five or above would be a criminal gang. Sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the bill authorize DHS officers and immigration judges to deport any immigrant, including lawful permanent residents of the United States, without requiring a conviction or even an arrest. Instead, the DHS would rely on evidence as minimal as the color of a person's shirt, the neighborhood they live in, the individual in their family, the belief of the officer. This is not just unreasonable, it is probably unconstitutional. Now, Chairman Goodlatte had an amendment that apparently recognized this fact, but it only fixes one part of the problem. His amendment, which would be effectuated through adoption of the rule, eliminates the extremely low reason-to-believe standard with respect to deportation, which applies, of course, to permanent residents and other immigrants in the United States. But even with this amendment, the bill authorizes the broad deportation of noncriminals, including religious workers, and, as I say, users of medical marijuana. And here is the other kicker: it could deny admission, without any review, to anyone who is suspected of doing a thing outlined in the bill, for example, using marijuana or a religious worker harboring someone who is undocumented. How would that work? If you are a legal permanent resident of the United States and you go visit your family in another country, when you try to come back in, you are stopped, and you are denied readmission, even if you have been here 10, 20, 30 years, and there is no appeal. You are out of luck. That is not fighting MS-13. That is not about gang reduction. That is really an overreach on this bill that none of us should agree with. There is another way this would work, which is an adjustment of status. Let's give this example: your son marries a woman from another country who is here on a legal visa, but she is part of a church that is providing sanctuary for a DREAMer. She is, therefore, suspected as being part of this criminal gang, a group of five or more, that is harboring this undocumented person. When your son goes to petition for his now-wife to become a legal permanent resident, she is going to be denied, and it is a reasonable- belief standard, not the higher standard that Mr. Goodlatte has tried to impose. There is no hearing. There is no appeal on that. Your daughter-in-law, and probably your son, are going to have to leave the country, and your grandchildren raised in another country. This is really not the American way. It is unproductive. It doesn't keep us any safer, and it doesn't do anything about MS-13. I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on this rule and that we could, instead, sit down together, reason together, come up with a plan that actually does something about gang violence. I am sure that, if we work together, we could come up with a bill that meets the requirements of the Constitution; that is targeted towards gang members, not nuns; and that actually makes our country safer. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Hastings for allowing my comments on this. I think the bill is mistitled, and it would be a mistake to allow it to proceed without further changes.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, but, as we have seen in the past, the name of a bill is not always reflected in the actual text of the bill, and that is true in this case, regrettably. As has been mentioned, section 2(a) of the bill defines criminal gangs so broadly as to sweep in many individuals that no one would think of as a gang member. The bill, for example, would classify any group of five that engages in harboring as a criminal gang. Now, harboring includes giving shelter to, or transporting, or providing other kinds of aid to undocumented immigrants. This means, as has been mentioned, that a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be defined as a criminal gang. And any immigrant clergy or congregationalist that assists that organization would be deportable if they are a legal permanent resident, or on a religious worker visa, or the like. Now, this isn't just a hypothetical. During the 1980s, members of the religious communities were repeatedly prosecuted for providing transportation to undocumented immigrants. In one fell swoop, this bill could turn nuns into gang members. And that is why I include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, the letter that Mr. Hastings referenced from the nuns objecting to this piece of legislation for those reasons. Network Advocates for Catholic Social Justice. Dear Members of the House of Representatives: Exactly one week ago, President Trump announced the termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, putting at risk the lives and well-being of undocumented immigrant youth who are valued members of our communities. DACA has protected nearly 800,000 immigrant youth from deportation and allowed them to work, attend school, and be publicly participating members of our communities. The President's action threatens every DACA recipient and causes great anxiety. This anxiety exists not just with the DACA youth but also in the broader community. We all are concerned about their future and fear their deportation to a country they neither know nor call home. Today, rather than taking up President Trump's challenge to ``fix'' DACA, the House Judiciary Committee is choosing instead to stir up politics of fear in our communities by proceeding with H.R. 3697 in an effort to criminalize the undocumented status of some members of our communities. Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice strongly urges Members of the House to vote NO on H.R. 3697. The faith community has vigorously opposed any bill that would promote the Trump Administration's stated goal of engaging in ``mass deportation'' of immigrants. The Trump agenda seeks to allow for the detention and removal of large numbers of immigrants without any criminal records. H.R. 3697 is just the latest bill targeted to achieve this goal. The bill purports to make communities safer by targeting the deportation of people involved in criminal activity in gangs. However, it is poorly drafted and overboard with sweeping generalizations. It even allows for the removal of individuals based on the mere subjective belief of an association to criminal activity. There is no requirement of a criminal conviction for deportation. This violates any principle of fairness as well as the Constitution's guarantee of due process. As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger. As such, we stand in solidarity with all people including our immigrant sisters and brothers. Catholic Sisters have a long history of work with immigrant communities and a commitment to their safety and security. Under this bill, religious workers who are engaged in immigrant ministry could be subject to prosecution. The bill's harboring provisions under INA 274 are so sweeping that religious workers who provide shelter, transportation or support to undocumented immigrants could be found liable of criminal activity. The federal courts have found that ``harboring'' includes offering a known undocumented individual a place to stay. This statute has been used against religious workers in the past, and this bill tries to make it a weapon for the future. It is time for Congress to stop playing games with the lives of our immigrant sisters and brothers. The real problem Congress should be working on today is an effort to pass the bipartisan Dream Act of 2017 championed by Congresswoman Ros- Lehtinen (R-FL) and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard (D-CA). That bill has broad support from the faith community and is a substantive improvement to our fractured immigration system. We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3697. It is poorly drafted legislation that would increase the disruption in our communities! Instead, work for the common good and take up H.R. 3440 and pass the bipartisan Dream Act. Faith and patriotism demand it. Sincerely, Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, Executive Director, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Adam, a student at the University of California Santa Cruz majoring in mathematics.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members don't know what a previous question motion is, and that is not really a surprise, because it is usually used to set up some issues, and it is a party-line vote. This is different. This is different because this would allow amendments to be offered to these appropriations bills. Now, the amendment process in appropriations is one of the few times that Members of Congress have an opportunity to offer an amendment. And it is not just Democrats. It is Republicans, too. I recall very well--I am a member, I am a co-chair of the Fourth Amendment Caucus. It is Congressman Ted Poe and myself. And what members of the Fourth Amendment Caucus did was we put together an amendment that actually reformed section 702 of the PATRIOT Act. What it said was you can't query the database accumulated under section 702 without a warrant. It is pretty obvious the Fourth Amendment protects Americans. That passed by a huge bipartisan vote twice. We don't get to offer that amendment this time because it is not an open rule. So I am just asking that we treat this previous question vote as very different than the usual garden variety previous question vote, because this is different. This isn't about idealogy. This isn't about 30- second adds and all that nonsense that we both do. No. This is about having the opportunity--Republicans and Democrats, Members of Congress--to offer an amendment in important areas, especially the Fourth Amendment. So please vote ``yes'' on the previous question this time, and let's have open rules. Let's have democracy in America.

Ms. LOFGREN

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. 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

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

Ms. LOFGREN

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.