House Debate on "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" (HR 10)

Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (House)
Page H8863-H8873

9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 10.

{time} 0915

In the Committee of the Whole

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kirk

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Kirk:
Page 60, after line 9, insert the following new section:

SEC. 1018. REPORT ON INTEGRATION OF DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
INTO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

(a) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
practicality of integrating the Drug Enforcement
Administration into the intelligence community.
(b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment corrects a critical problem with our
intelligence community and adds a needed bipartisan recommendation to
the reforms we have in the underlying legislation. We have known for
quite some time that the sale of elicit narcotics and terrorism go hand
in hand. This link is now firm and is clear with regard to the
terrorist activities and terrorist groups in Colombia. It is also clear
in Peru, but this phenomenon has spread far beyond Latin America and is
evident in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, I traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the key
frontier border area of such concern to the United States, and there I
learned a new fact, that Osama bin Laden's connection to his family
fortune has been reduced. His connection to donations to the United
States and Europe has been reduced, but he has a new source of income.
Osama bin Laden is now becoming one of the world's largest dealers in
heroin. Through just one of his supply organizations, bin Laden's
lieutenants are earning at least $28 million from the sale of narcotics
through Pakistan.
Let us remind ourselves of the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission,
that the attacks against the World Trade Centers, Shanksville, and the
Pentagon cost al Qaeda only $500,000. With an annual income of $28
million coming from the sale of illegal narcotics, we know that one of
the key terrorist financing mechanisms is the sale of illegal
narcotics.
In the 9/11 Commission report, they briefly mentioned this but did
not focus on it. When you are on the front lines in Kandahar or
Peshawar in Pakistan, you see that this link is clear.
Our Drug Enforcement Agency has some of the best financial maps of
terrorist organizations in the world, and the Drug Enforcement Agency
used to be a formal member of the intelligence community. In my
judgment and the judgment of my bipartisan partner, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen), on this amendment, we believe that the Drug
Enforcement Agency should become part of the intelligence community
again, that this link between terrorism and illegal narcotics is very
clear.
Roughly half of the 28 terrorist organizations identified by the
State Department in October, 2001, have links to drug activities.
Organizations like the Kurdistan Worker's Party, the National
Liberation Army, ELN, al Qaeda, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, Shining Path, and the United Self-Defense Forces/Group of
Colombia. All of these in a worldwide phenomenon, depending on violence
and terror, funded by the sale of illegal narcotics.
This bipartisan amendment would help study the integration of the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency into the intelligence community. It is
supported by Karen Tandy, the administrator of the DEA. It is supported
by a number

[[Page H8864]]

of minority members. It is supported by the attorney general. I urge
adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition to the amendment, although I rise in support of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Kirk amendment to H.R.
10. This amendment requires the President to submit to Congress a
report detailing the best way to incorporate the Drug Enforcement
Administration into the intelligence community.
The El Paso Intelligence Center, or EPIC, is an asset of the Drug
Enforcement Agency. It is located in El Paso, Texas. It is the Nation's
singular, multi-agency, tactical intelligence center for drug, alien,
and weapons trafficking intelligence. Supporting Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers, EPIC also provides information
regarding homeland security, homeland defense and counterterrorism to
its member agencies. During my 26\1/2\ year tenure with the United
States Border Patrol, I was able to utilize the services of EPIC,
leading to a personal appreciation of the important role that the El
Paso Intelligence Center plays in homeland security defense.
Currently, EPIC accomplishes its mission by processing requests for
information received from Federal, State and local law enforcement
personnel on persons, modes of transportation, organizations or
addresses that are suspected of being engaged or associated with some
type of criminal activity. Officers have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
access to the information in its database. It gives them the ability to
query and provide simultaneous access to a number of other Federal
databases. The El Paso Intelligence Center provides analysis of drug
movement events, trends and patterns. They also do research on criminal
investigations and communication intercept exploitation in support of
its many different customers.
It is well known that there is a link in my opinion between illegal
narcotics and the funding that it creates for terrorism. The El Paso
Intelligence Center understands this link and is known around the world
for its ability to connect the dots between actions and players.
The DEA plays an important role in this Nation's war on terrorism and
war on drugs, and should be more fully integrated with our intelligence
community. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Kirk
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and appreciate the efforts of
the gentleman from Illinois on this issue. The intelligence community
looks forward to an opportunity to review this issue further.
The DEA has substantial capabilities around the world that should be
fully utilized in an appropriate fashion. The report that is provided
for in this amendment will assist Congress in its consideration of the
role of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the intelligence
community along with the other important responsibilities that the DEA
undertakes on a daily basis. I look forward to seeing the report and
look forward to the passage of this amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment along with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk).
We need to consider making the DEA part of our intelligence network.
Before our own eyes, Afghanistan is re-emerging as the international
leader in the heroin trade. As this problem grows, the less control our
Nation will have over the funding sources of international terrorism. A
direct relationship exists between terrorism and the drug trade.
Therefore, a direct relationship is needed between the DEA and our
intelligence agencies. The DEA not only combats the drug trade around
the world but can gather valuable information that can transcend drug
trafficking and reach into the shadowy corners of international
terrorism.
According to the State Department, 12 of the 28 terrorist
organizations listed in the Department of State October, 2001, Report
on Foreign Terrorist Organizations have links to foreign drug
trafficking. One fitting example of this relationship happened in 2003
when a seizure of hashish from a trafficking group included suspected
al Qaeda members and involved drugs worth nearly $30 million at
wholesale.
The drug trade not only has a role in funding terrorists but also
plays a significant destabilizing role in Afghanistan. Just yesterday,
drug smugglers were implicated in a terrorist attack on Hamid Karzai's
vice presidential candidate. Free elections in Afghanistan are a threat
to the drug trade, just as free elections in Afghanistan are a threat
to global terrorism.
According to our Office of National Drug Control Policy, the
challenging security situation in Afghanistan has complicated the task
of fighting the war against drugs and vice versa. As the terrorists
lose ground, the opium poppy growers win, and much of the money from
Afghanistan's opium sales goes right back to the terrorists.
Drug traffickers and terror networks work out of the same rule book.
They both strive to undermine democratic institutions and engage in
widespread violence and corruption. Both groups also depend on money
laundering, forgery and arms deals to implement their deadly goals.
We cannot separate international terrorism from the drug trade. They
are intertwined. This amendment will examine the ways DEA can maintain
its current role while sharing information to help further protect our
Nation. I believe this amendment is in the spirit of the 9/11
Commission recommendations and will help create and consolidate the
whole intelligence picture that a president needs to defend our Nation.
I urge its support.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for supporting this amendment.
The gentleman from Texas is exactly right. El Paso Intelligence Center
already does this. It is a critical asset but should be a formal part
of the intelligence community, as are combatant commands that do a
number of key tasks with regard to drug profits and terrorism.
We know that half of the Afghan economy is now related to the sale of
illicit narcotics. We know that the Taliban and al Qaeda depend on
terrorist profits. We started winning the battle against narcoterrorism
in Colombia because we took a unified campaign on this approach against
terrorism and the sale of illegal narcotics.
The DEA is the expert on these financial organizations. If the 9/11
Commission said anything, it said we should attack the financial
support for terrorism and that financial support is increasingly
reliant on the sale of illegal narcotics, especially for Osama bin
Laden becoming one of the number one heroin dealers in Central Asia.
For these reasons, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 5 printed in House Report 108-751.

[[Page H8865]]

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Sessions:
At the end of title II of the bill (page 235, after line
21), insert the following new subtitle:

Subtitle J--Prevention of Terrorist Access to Destructive Weapons Act
of 2004

SECTION 2211. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Prevention of Terrorist
Access to Destructive Weapons Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2212. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The criminal use of man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS) presents a serious threat to civil aviation
worldwide, especially in the hands of terrorists or foreign
states that harbor them.
(2) Atomic weapons or weapons designed to release radiation
(``dirty bombs'') could be used by terrorists to inflict
enormous loss of life and damage to property and the
environment.
(3) Variola virus is the causative agent of smallpox, an
extremely serious, contagious, and sometimes fatal disease.
Variola virus is classified as a Category A agent by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meaning that it
is believed to pose the greatest potential threat for adverse
public health impact and has a moderate to high potential for
large-scale dissemination. The last case of smallpox in the
United States was in 1949. The last naturally occurring case
in the world was in Somalia in 1977. Although smallpox has
been officially eradicated after a successful worldwide
vaccination program, there remain two official repositories
of the variola virus for research purposes. Because it is so
dangerous, the variola virus may appeal to terrorists.
(4) The use, or even the threatened use, of MANPADS, atomic
or radiological weapons, or the variola virus, against the
United States, its allies, or its people, poses a grave risk
to the security, foreign policy, economy, and environment of
the United States. Accordingly, the United States has a
compelling national security interest in preventing unlawful
activities that lead to the proliferation or spread of such
items, including their unauthorized production, construction,
acquisition, transfer, possession, import, or export. All of
these activities markedly increase the chances that such
items will be obtained by terrorist organizations or rogue
states, which could use them to attack the United States, its
allies, or United States nationals or corporations.
(5) There is no legitimate reason for a private individual
or company, absent explicit government authorization, to
produce, construct, otherwise acquire, transfer, receive,
possess, import, export, or use MANPADS, atomic or
radiological weapons, or the variola virus.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to combat the
potential use of weapons that have the ability to cause
widespread harm to United States persons and the United
States economy (and that have no legitimate private use) and
to threaten or harm the national security or foreign
relations of the United States.

SEC. 2213. MISSILE SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO DESTROY AIRCRAFT.

Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 2332f the following:

``Sec. 2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft

``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), it
shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce,
construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or
indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or
possess and threaten to use--
``(A) an explosive or incendiary rocket or missile that is
guided by any system designed to enable the rocket or missile
to--
``(i) seek or proceed toward energy radiated or reflected
from an aircraft or toward an image locating an aircraft; or
``(ii) otherwise direct or guide the rocket or missile to
an aircraft;
``(B) any device designed or intended to launch or guide a
rocket or missile described in subparagraph (A); or
``(C) any part or combination of parts designed or
redesigned for use in assembling or fabricating a rocket,
missile, or device described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
``(2) Nonweapon.--Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to any
device that is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a
weapon.
``(3) Excluded conduct.--This subsection does not apply
with respect to--
``(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United
States or any department or agency thereof or of a State or
any department or agency thereof; or
``(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the
United States or any department or agency thereof or with a
State or any department or agency thereof.
``(b) Jurisdiction.--Conduct prohibited by subsection (a)
is within the jurisdiction of the United States if--
``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce;
``(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and
is committed by a national of the United States;
``(3) the offense is committed against a national of the
United States while the national is outside the United
States;
``(4) the offense is committed against any property that is
owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any
department or agency of the United States, whether the
property is within or outside the United States; or
``(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom
jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an
offense under this section or conspires with any person over
whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an
offense under this section.
``(c) Criminal Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who violates, or attempts or
conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more
than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment not less than 30 years or to imprisonment for
life.
``(2) Life imprisonment.--Any person who, in the course of
a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to
use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items
described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than
$2,000,000 and imprisoned for life.
``(3) Death penalty.--If the death of another results from
a person's violation of subsection (a), the person shall be
fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by death or
imprisoned for life.
``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`aircraft' has the definition set forth in section
40102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code.''.

SEC. 2214. ATOMIC WEAPONS.

(a) Prohibitions.--Section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) is amended by--
(1) inserting at the beginning ``a.'' before ``It'';
(2) inserting ``knowingly'' after ``for any person to'';
(3) striking ``or'' before ``export'';
(4) striking ``transfer or receive in interstate or foreign
commerce,'' before ``manufacture'';
(5) inserting ``receive,'' after ``acquire,'';
(6) inserting ``, or use, or possess and threaten to use,''
before ``any atomic weapon'';
(7) inserting at the end the following:
``b. Conduct prohibited by subsection a. is within the
jurisdiction of the United States if--
``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce; the offense occurs outside of the United
States and is committed by a national of the United States;
``(2) the offense is committed against a national of the
United States while the national is outside the United
States;
``(3) the offense is committed against any property that is
owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any
department or agency of the United States, whether the
property is within or outside the United States; or
``(4) an offender aids or abets any person over whom
jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an
offense under this section or conspires with any person over
whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an
offense under this section.''.
(b) Violations.--Section 222 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2272) is amended by--
(1) inserting at the beginning ``a.'' before ``Whoever'';
(2) striking ``, 92,''; and
(3) inserting at the end the following:
``b. Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to
violate, section 92 shall be fined not more than $2,000,000
and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 30
years or to imprisonment for life. Any person who, in the
course of a violation of section 92, uses, attempts or
conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any
atomic weapon shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and
imprisoned for life. If the death of another results from a
person's violation of section 92, the person shall be fined
not more than $2,000,000 and punished by death or imprisoned
for life.''.

SEC. 2215. RADIOLOGICAL DISPERSAL DEVICES.

Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding after section 2332g the following:

``Sec. 2332h. Radiological dispersal devices

``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce,
construct, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or
indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or
possess and threaten to use--
``(A) any weapon that is designed or intended to release
radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human
life; or
``(B) or any device or other object that is capable of and
designed or intended to endanger human life through the
release of radiation or radioactivity.
``(2) Exception.--This subsection does not apply with
respect to--
``(A) conduct by or under the authority of the United
States or any department or agency thereof; or
``(B) conduct pursuant to the terms of a contract with the
United States or any department or agency thereof.
``(b) Jurisdiction.--Conduct prohibited by subsection (a)
is within the jurisdiction of the United States if--

[[Page H8866]]

``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce;
``(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and
is committed by a national of the United States;
``(3) the offense is committed against a national of the
United States while the national is outside the United
States;
``(4) the offense is committed against any property that is
owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any
department or agency of the United States, whether the
property is within or outside the United States; or
``(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom
jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an
offense under this section or conspires with any person over
whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an
offense under this section.
``(c) Criminal Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who violates, or attempts or
conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more
than $2,000,000 and shall sentenced to a term of imprisonment
not less than 30 years or to imprisonment for life.
``(2) Life imprisonment.--Any person who, in the course of
a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to
use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items
described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than
$2,000,000 and imprisoned for life.
``(3) Death penalty.--If the death of another results from
a person's violation of subsection (a), the person shall be
fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by death or
imprisoned for life.''.

SEC. 2216. VARIOLA VIRUS.

Chapter 10 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 175b the following:

``Sec. 175c. Variola virus

``(a) Unlawful Conduct.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly produce,
engineer, synthesize, acquire, transfer directly or
indirectly, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or
possess and threaten to use, variola virus.
``(2) Exception.--This subsection does not apply to conduct
by, or under the authority of, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.
``(b) Jurisdiction.--Conduct prohibited by subsection (a)
is within the jurisdiction of the United States if--
``(1) the offense occurs in or affects interstate or
foreign commerce;
``(2) the offense occurs outside of the United States and
is committed by a national of the United States;
``(3) the offense is committed against a national of the
United States while the national is outside the United
States;
``(4) the offense is committed against any property that is
owned, leased, or used by the United States or by any
department or agency of the United States, whether the
property is within or outside the United States; or
``(5) an offender aids or abets any person over whom
jurisdiction exists under this subsection in committing an
offense under this section or conspires with any person over
whom jurisdiction exists under this subsection to commit an
offense under this section.
``(c) Criminal Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any person who violates, or attempts or
conspires to violate, subsection (a) shall be fined not more
than $2,000,000 and shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment not less than 30 years or to imprisonment for
life.
``(2) Life imprisonment.--Any person who, in the course of
a violation of subsection (a), uses, attempts or conspires to
use, or possesses and threatens to use, any item or items
described in subsection (a), shall be fined not more than
$2,000,000 and imprisoned for life.
``(3) Death penalty.--If the death of another results from
a person's violation of subsection (a), the person shall be
fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by death or
imprisoned for life.
``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`variola virus' means a virus that can cause human smallpox
or any derivative of the variola major virus that contains
more than 85 percent of the gene sequence of the variola
major virus or the variola minor virus.''.

SEC. 2217. INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (a), by inserting ``2122 and'' after
``sections'';
(2) in paragraph (c), by inserting ``section 175c (relating
to variola virus),'' after ``section 175 (relating to
biological weapons),''; and
(3) in paragraph (q), by inserting ``2332g, 2332h,'' after
``2332f,''.

SEC. 2218. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2332B(G)(5)(B) OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by inserting before ``2339 (relating to harboring
terrorists)'' the following: ``2332g (relating to missile
systems designed to destroy aircraft), 2332h (relating to
radiological dispersal devices),''; and
(B) by inserting ``175c (relating to variola virus),''
after ``175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons),''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``section'' and inserting ``sections 92
(relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) or''; and
(B) by inserting ``2122 or'' before ``2284''.

SEC. 2219. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1956(C)(7)(D) OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 1956(c)(7)(D), title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting after ``section 152 (relating to
concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery),''
the following: ``section 175c (relating to the variola
virus),'';
(2) by inserting after ``section 2332(b) (relating to
international terrorist acts transcending national
boundaries),'' the following: ``section 2332g (relating to
missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), section 2332h
(relating to radiological dispersal devices),''; and
(3) striking ``or'' after ``any felony violation of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,'' and after ``any
felony violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act'',
striking ``;'' and inserting ``, or section 92 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122) (relating to prohibitions
governing atomic weapons)''.

SEC. 2220. EXPORT LICENSING PROCESS.

Section 38(g)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2778) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' before ``(xi)''; and
(2) by inserting after clause (xi) the following: ``or
(xii) section 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Prevention of Terrorist
Access to Destructive Weapons Act of 2004, relating to
missile systems designed to destroy aircraft (18 U.S.C.
2332g), prohibitions governing atomic weapons (42 U.S.C.
2122), radiological dispersal devices (18 U.S.C. 2332h), and
variola virus (18 U.S.C. 175b);''.

SEC. 2221. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Chapter 113B.--The table of sections for chapter 113B
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting the
following after the item for section 2332f:

``2332g. Missile systems designed to destroy aircraft.
``2332h. Radiological dispersal devices.''.

(b) Chapter 10.--The table of sections for chapter 10 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting the
following item after the item for section 175b:

``175c. Variola virus.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today, I rise to offer my legislation, Prevention of Terrorist Access
to Destructive Weapons Act, an amendment to H.R. 10. This amendment
will aid the hard-working Federal investigators and agents on the front
line in the war on terror by establishing a zero tolerance policy
towards the illegal importation, possession or transfer of shoulder-
fired missiles, atomic weapons, dirty bombs, and the smallpox virus.

{time} 0930

Mr. SESSIONS. Today, maximum penalties of only 10 years in prison
apply to the unlawful possession of shoulder-fired missiles. The same
weak penalty also currently applies to the unlawful possession of an
atomic weapon. Today, there is no law criminalizing the possession of
dirty bombs with criminal intent, and the unregistered possession of
the smallpox virus carries a maximum penalties of only 5 years in
prison.
Given the terrorist threats that we currently face in the United
States, weak punishments for the possession or use of these weapons is
simply unacceptable in light of the fact that we know that 26 terror
groups already have shoulder-fired missiles in their possession.
My amendment imposes stringent, mandatory minimum criminal penalties
for these heinous crimes similar to the laws that we already use to
prosecute drug kingpins. Specifically, for each of the weapons covered
by the bill, unlawful possession would result in mandatory imprisonment
for up to 30 years to life. Using, attempting, or conspiring to use, or
possessing and threatening to use these weapons would result in
mandatory life in prison. And if one death were to result from the
unlawful possession of one of these weapons, this amendment would allow
the death penalty to be applied to anyone who targets America in a
terrorist attack.
Although tougher penalties may not deter homicidal terrorists
determined to attack the United States, they will help to deter those
middlemen who are

[[Page H8867]]

essential to the transfer of such weapons. Many of these middlemen aid
terrorists purely for financial gain, and significantly tougher
mandatory penalties would dramatically alter their cost-benefit
calculations.
When the middleman is caught importing or hiding these weapons, the
existence of tough penalties will also assist prosecutors and
investigators in obtaining cooperation and moving swiftly to identify
terrorists. Long mandatory sentences, including life without parole,
provide a fast and powerful incentive to cooperate, as has already been
proven in cracking the code of silence for organized crime. In the case
of these dangerous weapons, the speed with which persons choose to
cooperate could also save thousands of lives.
These increased penalties are completely justified in light of the
catastrophic destruction that could be caused by the use of any of
these weapons, and supporting my amendment will send a strong message
of America's resolve to win the war on terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting and
giving Federal investigators and prosecutors the tools they have asked
for to aid them in their fight against terrorism by supporting this
commonsense, effective amendment.

[From the Associated Press, Aug. 5, 2004]

Two Arrested in Missile Sting Operation

Washington.--Two leaders of a mosque in Albany, New York,
were arrested on charges stemming from an alleged plot to
help a man they thought was a terrorist who wanted to
purchase a shoulder-fired missile, federal authorities said
Thursday.
The men have ties to a group called Ansar al-Islam, which
has been linked to the al Qaeda terror network, according to
two federal law enforcement authorities speaking on condition
of anonymity.
The two arrests came as FBI, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and other agents executed search warrants at the
Masjid As-Salam mosque and two Albany-area homes, officials
said. The men were identified as Yassin Aref, 34, the imam of
the mosque, and 49-year-old Mohammed Hoosain, one of the
mosque's founders.
According to law enforcement officials, the two are being
charged with providing material support to terrorism by
participating in a conspiracy to help an individual they
believed was a terrorist purchase a shoulder-fired missile.
The individual was an undercover government agent and no
missile ever changed hands. Aref and Hoosain were allegedly
involved in money-laundering aspects of the plot, the
officials said.
The investigation has been going on for a year and is not
related to the Bush administration's decision earlier this
week to raise the terror alert level for certain financial
sector buildings in New York and Washington, the officials
said.
In Albany, some mosque members gathered early Thursday
outside the institution for morning prayers.
More details about the case were expected to be released
later Thursday by the Justice Department.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 4, 2004]

2 Convicted of Seeking Missiles for Al Qaeda Ally

(By Tony Perry)

San Diego.--A Pakistani national and a naturalized American
pleaded guilty Wednesday to a conspiracy to help the Al Qaeda
terrorist group by selling five tons of hashish and a half-
ton of heroin in exchange for money and four Stinger
missiles.
Muhamed Abid Afridi, 30, and a naturalized citizen from
Inida, Ilyas Ali, 56, admitted in U.S. District Court here
that they planned to sell the missiles to the Taliban, an
ally of Al Qaeda.
Afridi, Ali and a second Pakinstani were arrested in Hong
Kong in September 2002 after meeting with undercover FBI
agents posing as arms dealers with Stingers to sell. They
allegedly offered to sell the agents heroin and hashish in
return for missiles and money.
``They both had the will and the means to carry out the
transaction they were negotiating,'' said Assistant U.S.
Atty. Michael Skerlos.
Stingers are shoulder-launched missiles distributed widely
by the CIA to Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet army in the
1980s. Easy to use and deadly accurate at hitting low-flying
aircraft, Stingers were credited with helping the Afghans
demoralize and rout the much stronger Soviets.
``Because of the actions taken in this investigation,
America is safer and our citizens are more secure,'' Atty.
General John Ashcroft said in a statement.
Initial meetings between Ali and the FBI agents occurred in
San Diego, according to court documents. Afridi and Ali are
scheduled to be sentenced June 29 by Judge M. James Lorenz; a
plea bargain recommends that each be sentenced to up to 10
years in prison.
The case against the second Pakistani, Syed Mustajab Shah,
has a court date April 5.
Ali was a grocer in Minneapolis before his arrest.
____

[From Jane's Intelligence Review, Sept. 2001]

The Proliferation of MANPADS

(By Thomas B. Hunter)

Man-portable surface-to-air missiles, also known as
MANPADs, represent a significant potential threat to military
and civilian aircraft.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
proliferation of SA-series MANPADs has increased, and the
diffusion of these weapons now exceeds the infamous spread of
US-made Stinger missiles from Afghanistan during the 1990s.
Today, MANPADs of various types are in the hands of as many
as 27 guerrilla and terrorist groups around the world.
Tracking the proliferation of MANPADs is a difficult
endeavour. Often, the only verification of use by non-state
actors has been post-event in nature--recovery of a used
launcher or fragments from expended missiles. The black
market is the primary source for these weapons. Unlike state-
to-state transfers, usually documented and visible, the
illicit black market MANPAD trade defies accurate tracking.
The inability of governments to correctly identify seized
weapons also contributes to inaccurate reports. In many
cases, soldiers and government officials have identified
rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and other handheld rocket
launchers as MANPADs. Moreover, the word `Stinger' has become
an all-encompassing term for any MANPAD among many civilian,
military, and non-state groups, further complicating efforts
to verify proliferation activity.
In many cases of surface-to-air attacks on aircraft,
misreporting is quite common. Airbursts occurring near low-
flying aircraft have frequently been reported as attacks by
MANPADs, when in fact they are usually RPGs. Attacks on
aircraft at very low altitudes, those occurring under 1,000
feet, are almost exclusively RPGs. Guerrilla and terrorist
forces have successfully adapted the RPG to the anti-aircraft
role. This skill was demonstrated perhaps most clearly when
two US MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters were shot down by Somali
gunmen in October 1993.
One popular misconception is that these missiles become
unusable after several years due to battery or other systems
failures, and are therefore useless after a period of time.
While it is true that all MANPAD batteries have a finite
shelf life, these can be replaced with commercially purchased
batteries available on the open market and technically
proficient terrorist groups might also be able to construct
hybrid batteries to replace used ones.
Other concerns include deterioration of missile propellants
and seeker coolant, and general storage issues. While these
concerns merit attention, the commonly held assumption that
these weapons have short shelf lives is erroneous. Most
missiles are hermetically sealed in launchers designed for
rough handling by soldiers in the field. Temperature extremes
are also factored into the design of these weapons, reducing
the threat of environmental degradation.
Clearly, the shelf life of MANPADs is, in large part,
dependent on the conditions in which the weapon is stored.
However, under ideal (factory specified) conditions, some
versions of these weapons can remain operational for 22 years
or more. So while it can be assumed that some weapons have
not been stored in ideal conditions, many weapons previously
believed to be inoperative, such as the Afghan Stingers, may
indeed be operational.
Furthermore, MANPADs remain a popular commodity on the
global black arms market. With the exception of the Soviet-
Afghan war, these weapons are more widespread today than at
any time since their introduction in the late 1960s.
Guerrilla and terrorist organisations can obtain them with
relative ease, with the primary limitation being money. As
some of these groups increase their profits through drug
trafficking and other activities, the likelihood of further
illicit purchases will also increase.
MANPADs have proliferated to non-state groups throughout
sub-Saharan Africa. These weapons can be found in the hands
of insurgent groups in Angola, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Ethiopia. Rwanda and Somalia.
Of these states, Angola has seen the greatest activity. The
CIA covertly provided FIM-92A Stinger missiles to UNITA
rebels in the late 1980s as part of its effort to assist in
the overthrow of Angola's pro-communist government. As in
Afghanistan, efforts to recover the missiles following the
end of hostilities proved futile. Today UNITA retains an
unknown number of advanced weapons, which may be augmented
with SA-7 (NATO reporting name `Grail,' Russian name Strela-
2) and FIM-43 Redeye missiles captured from government
forces.
UNITA has also shown willingness to use them, sometimes
against civilian aircraft. UNITA fired missiles at three
World Food Programme (WFP) aircraft in June 2001, for
example. One plane was struck but managed to land safely at a
nearby airport. This attack was of particular concern in that
the missile struck the aircraft at an altitude of 15,000
feet--3,500 feet beyond the weapon's published maximum range.
While this is not the first report of Stinger missiles
reaching

[[Page H8868]]

this height, it is clear that aircraft travelling at an
altitude believed to be out of the range of these weapons
should be aware of this proven capability.
During the Soviet-Afghan War, the CIA working in
conjunction with the Pakistani Army's Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI), delivered over 1,000 Stingers to
Mujahideen rebels. While the rebels fired many of the
missiles against Soviet aircraft, hundreds remained after
the fighting ended in 1987. Poor bookkeeping at the CIA,
combined with the dispersal of the weapons to numerous
clans throughout the country, made accounting for and
recovering them impossible. The result was a proliferation
of advanced anti-aircraft weaponry throughout the region.
It is well-known that the rebels did not retain all of the
Stingers left behind after the war. Many found their way onto
the global grey and black arms markets and ended up in
guerrilla arsenals from Sri Lanka to Chechnya. With a
reported black market price of between US$80,000 and
$250,000, Stingers represent a significant profit potential
due in no small part to widespread demand.
Terrorist leader Osama bin Laden also reportedly possesses
a number of MANPADs, including SA-7s and Stingers. As Bin
Laden has both the financial resources and black market
connections to make procurement possible, these reports are
probably accurate. Persistent rumours also indicate that Bin
Laden's personal bodyguards may be equipped with Stingers,
ostensibly to counter an airborne attack.
Regardless of the veracity of the latter information, it is
logical to assume that Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda (`The Base')
network is in possession of additional MANPADs. If this is
true, then Al-Qaeda represents the most significant threat to
international civil aviation. Given Bin Laden's specific
threats against U.S. citizens, this threat is especially
relevant with regard to U.S.-owned airlines.
While the Russian military is certainly not confronted with
the same threat level that it experienced in Afghanistan, the
increased proliferation of MANPADs to Chechen rebels has
dramatically increased the danger to close air support (CAS)
aircraft operating in theatre. A number of aircraft have been
shot down, including Su-25 `Frogfoot' and Su-24 `Pencer'
fighter-bombers. MANPADs have also shot down a number of
military helicopters.
The sources of Chechen MANPADs are varied. However, a large
number of systems have been seized by Russian authorities,
indicating that the rebels have established an effective
pipeline for delivery. For example, three SA-7 missiles were
found in the territory of Ingushetia near the Russian-
Georgian border in September 2000. Just one month later, an
unspecified number of SA-7s were discovered in a building
near Severy airport. The following month a Russian military
operation resulted in the seizure of four SA-7 missiles with
their launchers from a lorry in Dagestan. A rebel spokesman
later announced that the weapons were part of a shipment of
arms destined for use in Chechnya. The shipment reportedly
cost the Chechens $40,000.
Another report indicated that Bin Laden might have
delivered as many as 50 Stinger missiles to the Chechens. The
weapons were to have been transported from either Georgia or
Azerbaijan and delivered in December 1999. Eight Stinger
missiles were reportedly airdropped in the mountains of
Sharoyskiy District on the night of 12-13 June 2001. The
source of these weapons was not reported.
The primary MANPAD threat in the Western Hemisphere is
their possible future use by the two main Colombian insurgent
groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas
Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia--FARC) and the National
Liberation Army (Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional--ELN).
Complicating analysis of the Colombia MANPAD situation is a
plethora of false of misleading reporting.
Colombian electronic and print press outlets have regularly
reported that both the FARC and ELN possess these missile
systems. Government officials have also fanned this fire by
issuing corroborating statements. These reports, both
military and civilian, cumulatively suggest that the FARC
currently possesses SA-7, SA-14 ``Gremlin'', SA-16 ``Gimlet''
and Redeye missiles. The Redeye missiles were variously
reported to have come from Nicaraguan (former Contra) or
Syrian arsenals and the SA-series weapons from various
sources. There is no definitive evidence, however, to confirm
that any Colombian guerrilla group currently possesses
MANPADs of any type.
This misreporting is usually a matter of an honest mistake
due to lack of familiarity with MANPADs, the Colombian
situation may mask an ulterior motive. While the threat to
the Colombian government from insurgent and narcotics
trafficking groups is quite real, it is well-known that
officials from that government have frequently overstated the
sophistication of rebel groups in an effort to garner greater
financial and political support from the USA. Given this
history, it is possible that MANPAD events have occasionally
been intentionally overstated.
According to Colombia expert Steven Salisbury, FARC
commanders have admitted to possessing MANPADs. ``The FARC
commanders who told me the FARC has shoulder-fired SAMs
[surface-to-air missiles] were field commanders talking
privately to me,'' he said. ``They said, yes, they have
SAMs.'' This information given to Salisbury was corroborated
by two FARC block commanders as well as other guerrillas.
Four additional factors must be highlighted. The first of
these is that FARC commanders have stated that they do indeed
possess MANPADs. The second is that both the FARC and ELN are
known to be aggressively seeking these weapons. The third
factor is that the guerrillas have received training on these
weapons. In one instance, a Colombian government source
stated that 25 guerrillas travelled to Nicaragua to attend an
anti-aircraft course taught by former Sandanista soldiers.
This course reportedly included MANPAD training as well as
gunnery techniques involving 0.50-calibre heavy machine guns
and the use of RPG-7s in the anti-air role. FARC members may
also have travelled to Syria and Libya to receive similar
training. Finally, both the FARC and ELN have the financial
resources to make such a purchase possible.
With these factors in mind, it appears likely that the FARC
will procure at least one type of MANPAD--if it has not done
so already. Colombian guerrilla groups have had very little
difficulty obtaining weapons for use in their war against the
government. Well-established arms transit routes are in place
to facilitate these shipments. The arms pipelines through
which the FARC and ELN may obtain MANPADs run through the
following countries Albania, Belgium, Ecuador, Jordan, North
Korea, Peru, Romania, and Russia. Of specific concern is the
Russian relationship, as the FARC and Russian mafias have a
well-established arms-for-drugs pipeline in place. The
Russian mafias have demonstrated the ability to obtain
virtually any type of weapons system. If the Colombian
guerrillas are to obtain these weapons, and have not been
successful already, they will most likely come from this
black market channel.
It must be noted that when the FARC obtains these weapons,
it will almost certainly use them only in critical
situations, such as the defence of important base camps or
headquarters facilities. They will most likely not be used
against drug-spraying aircraft or other non-threatening
targets due to the high value of MANPADs to the FARC
leadership.
If the FARC does indeed maintain a small inventory of these
weapons, this is the most likely explanation for why they
have not yet been employed. If employed, targets would
most likely include Colombian Air Force CAS aircraft or
possibly high-value civilian flights such as aircraft
transporting senior government officials.
Hizbullah probably took its first delivery of MANPADs in
1982 with the acquisition of a small number of SA-7s.
Reporting since that time indicates that these stocks were
supplemented with PIM-92A Stingers in the mid-1990s, provided
by Islamic Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Most recently,
the group may have received a small number of Chinese-made
Qianwei (`Advanced Guard')--1 (QW-1) systems. If true, the
acquisition of this latter system represents a significant
upgrade in the surface-to-air capabilities of Hizbullah.
The Palestinian Authority also maintains a stock of SA-7
missiles and launchers. Reports also indicates that the
Palestinians may have a small number of Stinger systems as
well. The source of the SA-7 weapons is unclear, but it is
possible some were delivered from Egypt aboard fishing boats,
a common local method of arms smuggling.
For example, on 8 May 2001, Israeli security services
intercepted the Lebanese-flagged vessel Santorini off the
coast between Haifa and Tel Aviv. A search of the ship
revealed a large quantity of arms, including 60 mm mortars,
landmines, grenades, and four SA-7 missiles with launchers.
The shipment was reportedly sent by the Palestinian Front for
the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and intended for
use by Palestinian militants. The MANPADS were confiscated by
the Israelis and probably added to their own arsenal.
Apart from the Afghan Mujahideen, the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have enjoyed the greatest success with
MANPADs. LTTE guerrillas have fired an estimated 20 missiles
at government aircraft since 1996, shooting down three
helicopters and probably two fixed-wing transports. These
attacks killed a total of 179 personnel.
It is estimated that the LTTE possesses SA-7, SA-1a, and
other MANPADs. One Chinese-built Hongying-5 (HN-5A) system
was also discovered during government operations; however,
there is no indication that the LTTE possesses additional
units. It is possible that this weapon was procured from
sources within the Burmese military.
In December 2000 Sri Lankan news carried video of a Tamil
rebel holding what appeared to be a Stinger missile during an
October operation against the Trincomalee naval facility.
However, later analysis indicated this weapon was most
probably a double barrelled 107 mm Katyusha rocket, believed
to be a variant of the Chinese Type 63 107mm launcher, and
not a MANPAD.
The LTTE reportedly acquired these weapons from a variety
of sources. Press reports indicated that the Kurdistan's
Worker's Party (PPK), working with the Greek 17 November
terrorist organisation, sold 11 Stinger missiles to the LTTE
in 1994. These weapons were reportedly built in Greece, which
is a member of European consortium manufacturing PIM-92A/C
Stinger systems under license from the USA. Other Stingers
may have been sold or donated to the Tamils by the Afghan
Taliban during the 1990s. LTTE

[[Page H8869]]

weapons buyers have also been reported in Cambodia and
Thailand, reportedly seeking MANPADs Given the Tamils success
with these weapons, it is likely that procurement efforts
will continue.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this did not go through the Committee on the Judiciary
and it is somewhat complicated and it appears to be overlapping and
recreates and reauthorizations present law. For example under title
XVIII, chapter 10 already criminalizes the use of biological weapons;
chapter 11(b) criminalizes chemical weapons; chapter 39 criminalizes
nuclear weapons; chapter 4 criminalizes the use of explosives, and on
and on.
In addition, many of those, all of those offenses are predicates to
18 U.S.C. (a) 2332(b) which provides for the death penalty if death
results from any violation of those statutes.
The only change appears to be a mandatory 30 years for attempts and
conspiracies. There is no differentiation for a role in a conspiracy,
relative knowledge of the crime, or even if death were an accident that
had not been intended. What we have is new mandatory minimums.
We have, in the Committee on the Judiciary, often cited many findings
and recommendations from researchers, sentencing professionals, even
the judicial branch, justices on the Supreme Court, including the chief
justice, citing problems created by mandatory sentences. They have been
found to be a waste of money compared to alternatives such as treatment
or traditional sentencing. They disrupt the ability of the Sentencing
Commission and the courts to apply an orderly, proportional,
nondisparate sentencing system. They discriminate against minorities
and they transfer an inordinate amount of discretion to prosecutors in
an adversarial system.
Mandatory minimum sentences increase disparities in sentencing
because they do not allow distinctions between major players and bit
players in a crime. In a recent letter to the subcommittee, the U.S.
Judicial Conference, headed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court,
noted and I quote: In addition to resulting in unwarranted sentencing
disparities, mandatory minimums often lead to treatment of dissimilar
offenders in a similar manner by requiring courts to impose the same
sentence on offenders, when sound policy and common sense call for
reasonable differences in punishment to reflect differences in the
seriousness of the conduct or danger to society.
In other words, mandatory minimums violate common sense. That is the
chief justice and the U.S. Judicial Conference.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, the underlying bill, is a reorganization
bill. We should not include controversial criminal penalties,
especially when the Judicial Conference headed by the chief justice
tells us that these things violate common sense. We also need to study
the international implications of this, because when we add in the
death penalty, we add in complications of international cooperation.
Most countries around the world do not have the death penalty and we
have had problems where they would not even extradite criminals to the
United States because we have all of these death penalties.
We need to study this, and having a floor amendment is not the
appropriate way to legislate. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would
defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the several very important articles in my added
materials that I have submitted speak not only to the threat to the
United States, but also the reality of the groups who were engaged in
the transfer, the trafficking of shoulder-fired missiles, of weapons of
mass destruction, in terms of viruses that could be placed in the
United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman for not liking the minimum
mandatory sentences. I would also say that it is up to this body, Mr.
Chairman, to make sure that we provide the tools necessary to the
Attorney General and other U.S. attorneys who may be prosecuting these
cases, to give to the frontline agents and investigators those
abilities to find and stop those people who are perpetrators of crime,
mass murder against the United States of America.
Most of all, I would remind this body how important it is to make
sure that we keep terrorism away from our doorsteps. I believe in
effective law enforcement, effective use of the laws of this country,
and making sure that we have looked at this from the perspective of the
Attorney General of the United States and U.S. attorneys across this
country who support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that we already have in the Code
serious penalties for all of these crimes. The appropriate way to
legislate would be to go through the committee so that we could see
exactly how these fit into the present sentencing scheme. I would hope
that we defeat the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Members of this body understand that
there is a need to make sure that we protect this country and the laws
of this country. We have consulted with the Attorney General of the
United States and other U.S. attorneys who are asking for this. I
support this amendment. I believe it will help the President of the
United States to ensure the safety of our country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Bonilla:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
(and redesignate provisions and amend the table of contents
accordingly):

SECTION ___. INCREASE IN DETENTION BED SPACE.

Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall increase by not less
than 2,500, in each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the number
of beds available for immigration detention and removal
operations of the Department of Homeland Security above the
number for which funds were allotted for the preceding fiscal
year.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me compliment the committees who put this bill together.
They have done a great job facing very complicated circumstances.
Specifically, they did a very good job about increasing the Border
Patrol staff, that we need to deal with the increased flow of illegal
immigration along the southwest border, along with other Federal agents
that are necessary to do the job.
Unfortunately, there was an oversight in the bill in providing bed
space for the people that we catch. Let me point out as well that the
overwhelming number of them now are categorized as they are by the
Border Patrol as OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' people trying to enter
our country that have figured out a different way to come in versus the
ports of entry on either coast or using other means.
Mr. Chairman, in many cases the OTMs, are now arrested, processed,
interrogated and released into communities because the Department of
Homeland Security does not have

[[Page H8870]]

enough bed space. So, believe it or not, in Texas alone, since January,
there have been over 15,000 OTMs released in communities throughout the
State in the neighborhood. They might have been introduced into any
neighborhood in Texas, no matter where one lives.
Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage. Homeland Security claims the
problem is bed space, so in this amendment we deal with that problem,
calling for 2,500 additional bed spaces in 2006 and another 2,500 in
2007.
This is an amendment that is supported by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox), Chairman of Homeland Security. It is also
supported by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), my good friend, who
represents an area near the Mexican border and the Gulf Coast in Texas
and who has been working very hard on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan issue. We have strong support by
other members of the committees working on this. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), my good colleague and friend from San Antonio and
central Texas area, has been working hard on this issue as well. This
is also something that is supported by, again no matter what ethnic
group or political party one belongs to, especially on the southwest
border. There is strong support by the mayors, the county judges, the
county commissioners that are working very hard to deal with this
illegal immigration problem every day.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just single out the wonderful
Border Patrol agents that are patrolling day and night, sometimes
working with fewer resources than they should have, and doing a great
job of patrolling the border. Help is on the way for them in terms of
manpower and hopefully this amendment, when adopted, will provide the
bed space as well to house the illegal aliens that are coming across
our border and taking advantage of what we now have along the Mexican
border.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition to the amendment, although I support the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is no example any better of
the failure of the administration to make America safe than is
illustrated by the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas today.
What the amendment says is that we need 2,500 more bed spaces so that
we can end this deplorable, unacceptable practice of catching illegal
immigrants who come across our borders every day from countries other
than Mexico and seeing them immediately released into our country,
knowing that 80 to 90 percent of them will never show up again for a
deportation hearing.
Mr. Chairman, it is a practice that must end, but our administration
has allowed this to go on for year after year after year. And it is
very unfortunate, even though I appreciate greatly the intent expressed
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), my colleague, it is very
unfortunate that all the amendment does is direct the Department of
Homeland Security to somewhere in their budget find the money for an
additional 2,500 beds so we can end this practice that represents a
serious threat to the security of our country.
The truth of the matter is the gentleman from Texas is on the
Committee on Appropriations, and when we look at what the Committee on
Appropriations did to try to help solve this problem, all they did was
what the President asked for. He asked for 117 additional bed spaces,
when the President knows that even today we have only appropriated
money to hold 1,944 detainees who cross the border illegally every day
and we are holding 22,500. We are stretched to the limit now.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) points out, we need at
least 2,500 more and probably 5,000 more beds, which is provided for in
his amendment but not funded.
Nowhere is the gap between the rhetoric of the administration on
protecting America and the reality of the failure to protect America
any clearer than it is right here.
The Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security did a 6-
month investigation of the problems of our border. We produced a report
entitled Transforming the Southern Border. It pointed out a lot of
interesting facts, one of which is the one we are discussing. As our
staff traveled along the Rio Grande south of El Paso, we took this
picture. What it shows is a cargo van backed up to a school bus just
across the border inside the United States, along with an 18-wheeler,
another cargo van, and another school bus.
As the staff flew over, nobody was to be seen who would be a part of
our Border Patrol. So they called into the Border Patrol to tell them
about this suspicious-looking activity. When they flew back over, the
bus and the van and all the vehicles were gone. We do not know if they
were exchanging illegal immigrants, illegal goods, narcotics, or
nuclear weapons.
As the 9/11 Commission said, our borders are porous and we must
remedy this problem. But to do so it is going to take more than
rhetoric.
Mr. Chairman, when we look at what we are spending on homeland
security today, we are spending $20 billion more than we did in the
year of 9/11. That is a lot of money, but maybe not in an $850 billion
discretionary budget. But last year alone, while we had increased
homeland security spending, $20 billion, the richest 1 percent of
Americans, those making over a million dollars, got four times the tax
relief, almost $90 billion.
The reality is that we have made the wrong choice. We have failed to
make America safe. And when illegal immigrants can come across our
borders in the numbers that they are coming, last year alone 25,000
illegal immigrants were actually caught coming across our border from
places other than Mexico. Every year there is close to a million that
get across that are caught. No telling how many are not caught. But of
those 25,000, because we did not have the detention space, the jail
space to hold them, 80 to 90 percent of them never showed up because
the 25,000 were given a free pass into America, released on personal
bond.
Mr. Chairman, it does not surprise anybody that 80 to 90 percent of
those 25,000 never show up. They are in our country today. This failure
to protect America is inexcusable. I think we have got to stop it.
Mr. Chairman, I think I will vote for the amendment offered by my
colleague, but I want to point out that we failed to fund the very
issue he raises.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner)
for a quick question.
Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman acknowledge in the end that he would
vote for the amendment? I wanted to understand that clearly.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, yes,
I will vote for the amendment because I believe it is based on a
sincere intent to solve a serious problem. But I was simply pointing
out that it provides no funding. The gentleman's Committee on
Appropriations only provided funding for 117 beds in next year's budget
and there is no money to do what is provided for in this amendment. To
simply direct the department to take it out of their hide is simply
unrealistic.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas for his answer.
I wanted to reiterate that in spite of the rhetoric that was just
heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my colleague, he is
supporting the amendment. I am delighted to hear that.
The gentleman makes a lot of good points about problems that the
Department of Homeland Security has faced over the last couple of
years. I agree with the gentleman. That is why I am here trying to do
something about it.
But, again, in spite of the rant that we just heard about how bad the
problem is, and I can assure the gentleman that I have probably
delivered the same remarks in my district, and here in Washington as
well, about the problems that the Department of Homeland Security is
facing, but ultimately we are all here to try to do something about it.

[[Page H8871]]

So I would hope that the gentleman would not only vote for the
amendment, as he has indicated he will, but also tell his friends that
we need this help for our good agents that are patrolling the border
and for all of us who are trying to do something about it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this
amendment. Congressman Bonilla's amendment seeks to increase alien
detention bed space by 2,500 beds per year for fiscal years 2006 and
2007. It is a very simple provision, but it will have a material impact
on improving the security of our homeland and discouraging illegal
immigration.
In order to have a successful border security strategy, it must be
balanced. That is why this amendment is so important. There are other
provisions in H.R. 10 that will increase staffing levels for the Border
Patrol and ICE investigators. These, too, are important initiatives and
will result in many more illegal aliens and immigration violators being
apprehended. But in order to make the best use of these new assets, we
must have adequate facilities to detain those additional immigration
violators who are caught, especially those considered high-risk or in
mandatory detention categories.
The Department of Homeland Security's Detention and Removal Office,
or DRO, is currently authorized to fund approximately 19,000 detention
beds. However, they consistently hold over 22,000 illegal aliens each
day in facilities around the Nation. In the first year, this amendment
would increase available bed space to meet the minimum demand and then
would go above that in FY 2007 to provide additional detention
resources to meet the expected demand that these other new border
control initiatives will create.
It is a well-known fact that the majority of aliens not detained and
released, pending an immigration hearing, never return for their
scheduled hearing but seek instead to melt into U.S. communities. There
are approximately 300,000 non-citizens in the United States who have
received deportation orders, but who have not left the country. There
is no doubt that more of these individuals would have left the country
if they had been detained in the beginning.
Approximately 50 percent of DRO detainees are Mexicans, but there is
a growing number of individuals from different countries, called
``other than Mexicans'' or OTMs. Less is known about their motivation
for coming to the U.S., and I have serious concerns about individuals
illegally entering America who originally are from countries of
interest with respect to terrorism. We must have the resources to
detain these individuals to guarantee that we have an opportunity to
verify their identity and motives, and that they are deported if
necessary.
In order to monitor more of the individuals that are released, DRO
utilizes alternative methods of detention. This includes release on
recognizance, release on bond, electronic monitoring devices (EMD), and
the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). While these
alternative methods are appropriate and responsible initiatives, it is
essential that we have sufficient detention bed space for high-risk
individuals, those with criminal records, and repeat immigration
violators.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I would
like to thank Mr. Bonilla for offering this critical amendment and
request the support of my colleagues in ensuring passage. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thousands of illegal aliens pour
over our southern border each day. A significant number of these aliens
are not Mexican, and cannot simply be sent back over the border.
Border Patrol agents must process aliens from countries other than
Mexico and are forced to release them into our communities pending a
hearing. This is because there is not enough bed space in our detention
facilities.
When illegal aliens are released pending a hearing, it is estimated
that 85 percent will never be heard from again.
This process has become known as the ``catch and release'' program,
and it threatens our national security.
The Department of Homeland Security recently reported that from
October through June over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were apprehended on
the southern border from countries such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt,
Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
The hard work of our Border Patrol agents is wasted when we do not
have enough detention space.
The Bonilla amendment would help correct this problem by authorizing
an increase of 2,500 detention bed spaces for each of the next two
years.
The lack of detention space has reached a crisis.
Every day we are releasing aliens from dozens of countries into our
communities. We don't know if these individuals are criminals or
terrorists.
The Bonilla amendment curtails the catch and release program on our
southern border. It lets the U.S. detain illegal immigrants who enter
our country rather than release them in our communities.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by my
friend from Texas, and the co-chair of the House Border Caucus, Mr.
Bonilla.
Let me begin by thanking the gentleman for his hard work to find a
way to stop the current ``catch and release'' policy propounded by this
government . . . by releasing many of the illegal immigrants we are
catching into the U.S. population. This is frightening for all of us.
Now, the basis for this ``catch and release'' policy is a lack of
beds for the Department of Homeland Security to hold these illegal
immigrants from countries other than Mexico (OTMs). The gentleman's
amendment today specifically addresses this shortcoming and I join him
in advocating it to the House.
We are apprehending an alarming number of OTMs with not enough space
to detain them--forcing us to release them into our community--we need
additional beds. The gentleman's amendment is certainly a good
beginning and I am grateful for his efforts to end this policy.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capito

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Capito:
At the end of title II add the following:
Subtitle J--Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Protection Act of
20004

SEC. 2111. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Railroad Carriers and
Mass Transportation Protection Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2112. ATTACKS AGAINST RAILROAD CARRIERS AND MASS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking sections 1992 through 1993 and
inserting the following:

``Sec. 1992. Terrorist attacks and other violence against
railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems
on land, on water, or through the air

``(a) General Prohibitions.--Whoever, in a circumstance
described in subsection (c), knowingly--
``(1) wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables railroad
on-track equipment or a mass transportation vehicle;
``(2) with intent to endanger the safety of any person, or
with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, and
without the authorization of the railroad carrier or mass
transportation provider--
``(A) places any biological agent or toxin, destructive
substance, or destructive device in, upon, or near railroad
on-track equipment or a mass transportation vehicle; or
``(B) releases a hazardous material or a biological agent
or toxin on or near any property described in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (3);
``(3) sets fire to, undermines, makes unworkable, unusable,
or hazardous to work on or use, or places any biological
agent or toxin, destructive substance, or destructive device
in, upon, or near any--
``(A) tunnel, bridge, viaduct, trestle, track,
electromagnetic guideway, signal, station, depot, warehouse,
terminal, or any other way, structure, property, or
appurtenance used in the operation of, or in support of the
operation of, a railroad carrier, without the authorization
of the railroad carrier, and with intent to, or knowing or
having reason to know such activity would likely, derail,
disable, or wreck railroad on-track equipment;
``(B) garage, terminal, structure, track, electromagnetic
guideway, supply, or facility used in the operation of, or in
support of the operation of, a mass transportation vehicle,
without the authorization of the mass transportation
provider, and with intent to, or knowing or having reason to
know such activity would likely, derail, disable, or wreck a
mass transportation vehicle used, operated, or employed by a
mass transportation provider; or
``(4) removes an appurtenance from, damages, or otherwise
impairs the operation of a railroad signal system or mass
transportation signal or dispatching system, including a
train control system, centralized dispatching system, or
highway-railroad grade crossing warning signal, without
authorization from the railroad carrier or mass
transportation provider;
``(5) with intent to endanger the safety of any person, or
with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life,
interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher,
driver, captain, locomotive engineer, railroad conductor, or
other person while the person is employed in dispatching,
operating, or maintaining railroad on-track equipment or a
mass transportation vehicle;

[[Page H8872]]

``(6) commits an act, including the use of a dangerous
weapon, with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
injury to any person who is on property described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (3), except that this
subparagraph shall not apply to rail police officers in
acting the course of their law enforcement duties under
section 28101 of title 49, United States Code;
``(7) conveys false information, knowing the information to
be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt that was
made, is being made, or is to be made, to engage in a
violation of this subsection; or
``(8) attempts, threatens, or conspires to engage in any
violation of any of paragraphs (1) through (7);

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both.
``(b) Aggravated Offense.--Whoever commits an offense under
subsection (a) of this section in a circumstance in which--
``(1) the railroad on-track equipment or mass
transportation vehicle was carrying a passenger or employee
at the time of the offense;
``(2) the railroad on-track equipment or mass
transportation vehicle was carrying high-level radioactive
waste or spent nuclear fuel at the time of the offense;
``(3) the railroad on-track equipment or mass
transportation vehicle was carrying a hazardous material at
the time of the offense that--
``(A) was required to be placarded under subpart F of part
172 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; and
``(B) is identified as class number 3, 4, 5, 6.1, or 8 and
packing group I or packing group II, or class number 1, 2, or
7 under the hazardous materials table of section 172.101 of
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; or
``(4) the offense results in the death of any person;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of
years or life, or both. In the case of a violation described
in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the term of imprisonment
shall be not less than 30 years; and, in the case of a
violation described in paragraph (4) of this subsection, the
offender shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for
life and be subject to the death penalty.
``(c) Circumstances Required for Offense.--A circumstance
referred to in subsection (a) is any of the following:
``(1) Any of the conduct required for the offense is, or,
in the case of an attempt, threat, or conspiracy to engage in
conduct, the conduct required for the completed offense would
be, engaged in, on, against, or affecting a mass
transportation provider or railroad carrier engaged in or
affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
``(2) Any person travels or communicates across a State
line in order to commit the offense, or transports materials
across a State line in aid of the commission of the offense.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `biological agent' has the meaning given to
that term in section 178(1);
``(2) the term `dangerous weapon' means a weapon, device,
instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate,
that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or
serious bodily injury, including a pocket knife with a blade
of less than 2\1/2\ inches in length and a box cutter;
``(3) the term `destructive device' has the meaning given
to that term in section 921(a)(4);
``(4) the term `destructive substance' means an explosive
substance, flammable material, infernal machine, or other
chemical, mechanical, or radioactive device or material, or
matter of a combustible, contaminative, corrosive, or
explosive nature, except that the term `radioactive device'
does not include any radioactive device or material used
solely for medical, industrial, research, or other peaceful
purposes;
``(5) the term `hazardous material' has the meaning given
to that term in chapter 51 of title 49;
``(6) the term `high-level radioactive waste' has the
meaning given to that term in section 2(12) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(12));
``(7) the term `mass transportation' has the meaning given
to that term in section 5302(a)(7) of title 49, except that
the term includes school bus, charter, and sightseeing
transportation;
``(8) the term `on-track equipment' means a carriage or
other contrivance that runs on rails or electromagnetic
guideways;
``(9) the term `railroad on-track equipment' means a train,
locomotive, tender, motor unit, freight or passenger car, or
other on-track equipment used, operated, or employed by a
railroad carrier;
``(10) the term `railroad' has the meaning given to that
term in chapter 201 of title 49;
``(11) the term `railroad carrier' has the meaning given to
that term in chapter 201 of title 49;
``(12) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning
given to that term in section 1365;
``(13) the term `spent nuclear fuel' has the meaning given
to that term in section 2(23) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(23));
``(14) the term `State' has the meaning given to that term
in section 2266;
``(15) the term `toxin' has the meaning given to that term
in section 178(2); and
``(16) the term `vehicle' means any carriage or other
contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on land, on water, or through the air.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 97 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``RAILROADS'' in the chapter heading and
inserting ``RAILROAD CARRIERS AND MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
ON LAND, ON WATER, OR THROUGH THE AIR'';
(B) by striking the items relating to sections 1992 and
1993; and
(C) by inserting after the item relating to section 1991
the following:

``1992. Terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers
and against mass transportation systems on land, on
water, or through the air.''.

(2) The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item
relating to chapter 97 and inserting the following:

``97. Railroad carriers and mass transportation systems on land, on
water, or through the air...............................1991''.....

(3) Title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 2332b(g)(5)(B)(i), by striking ``1992
(relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist
attacks and other acts of violence against mass
transportation systems),'' and inserting ``1992 (relating to
terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad
carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on
water, or through the air),'';
(B) in section 2339A, by striking ``1993,''; and
(C) in section 2516(1)(c) by striking ``1992 (relating to
wrecking trains),'' and inserting ``1992 (relating to
terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad
carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on
water, or through the air),''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) the Committee on Rules, the
Departments of Justice and Transportation, the Subcommittee on
Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
the many others who are supporting me in this initiative.
Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the September 11th attacks, as well as
the recent bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, the need
for stronger criminal laws to deal with terrorists and other violence
has never been stronger. Intelligence reports last spring indicate that
some terrorists might try to bomb U.S. rail lines or buses in major
U.S. cities. We have also heard reports of so-called ``dirty bombs''
that can be easily transported over our extensive mass transportation
system.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have to remind anyone in this body of the
potential loss of life and disruption to our economy and way of life
from this modern new threat.
In order to help meet this threat head on, I have introduced an
amendment that revises, enhances, and consolidates two Federal criminal
law statutes into one comprehensive statute in order to deter and more
effectively punish terrorist acts against railroad carriers and other
mass transportation providers.
Specifically, under current Federal criminal law, terrorist acts
against railroad carriers are prosecuted under the so-called ``Wrecking
Trains'' statute which was enacted in 1940. This statute is in many
ways outdated, full of gaps and inconsistencies, and quite literally
inadequately addresses modern threats like radioactive materials or
biological agents.
Additionally, the September 11 attacks on our homeland gave rise to
the creation of another Federal criminal statute which covers terrorist
acts against mass transportation systems. By combining these two
statutes to cover all forms of transportation and railway carriers, we
can introduce more consistency, predictability, and effectiveness into
Federal prosecutorial powers.
First, it would reduce our criminal law's vulnerability to bogus
legal claims and also prevent prosecutors from having to prosecute for
lesser offenses because of discrepancies or gaps in the current law.
Richard Reid, known as the Shoe Bomber, was actually able to have a
charge against him

[[Page H8873]]

dismissed because the new mass transportation statute did not
explicitly define an airplane as a vehicle for purposes of prosecuting
under the statute. My amendment will prevent oversights like this from
happening.
Secondly, my amendment will bring more consistent and uniform
protections to all modes of railroad carriers and mass transportation
providers.
Third, my amendment will expand the jurisdictional reach of criminal
law to cover more offenses, such as the release of biological agents or
radioactive material, and cover more property if the prohibited conduct
affects interstate commerce or travel, or communicating, or
transporting prohibited materials across State lines.
Fourth, my amendment will make capital punishment an option under
aggravating circumstances that involve terrorist acts that result in
the death of a person. If our jurisdictional system is unable to have
this tool at their disposal in order to meet the new threats that
terrorism has brought upon us, then we will lose a critical opportunity
to deter and prevent more terrorism from happening.
And fifth, my amendment protects all law enforcement, railroad
carriers, and mass transportation providers from criminal liability if
they are performing their duties in the course of lawful and authorized
activities. In other words, my amendment protects conduct that should
be protected, but does not protect conduct that should not be protected
such as terrorist or imposters posing as rail or mass transportation
employees.
Mr. Chairman, overall, Congress has taken dramatic steps in the last
3 years to improve our security here and abroad, but there is more work
to be accomplished. I strongly urge passage of this amendment to H.R.
10.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is a 10-page amendment with mandatory minimum
sentences, mandatory sentences of life imprisonment, and a death
penalty provision. It has not been considered by any subcommittee or
the full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am not sure it has even been
considered by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We
have information that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has not considered it and, in fact, may not support it.
It appears to make, but it is not clear whether conspiracies,
attempts and threats are subject to the same penalties as the
underlying offense. Not only have these provisions not been considered
by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, but because of the
mandatory minimum sentences, neither sentencing experts nor judges on
the U.S. Sentencing Commission who have the responsibility to assure a
rational and proportional sentencing system, nor any Federal judge who
would review all the facts and circumstances of the case, will get to
assess whether or not these sentences make any sense.
Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the Judicial Conference has
written a letter saying that these mandatory minimums violate common
sense, and yet here we are asked to decide in a 5-minute debate whether
or not they are appropriate in this case.
Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment indicates that we are
trying to conform one code section to another. I would ask that we do
that when we consider the code sections. We are going to consider the
PATRIOT Act. That is one of the code sections involved. And the time to
consider the PATRIOT Act and amending the PATRIOT Act is when we have
the PATRIOT Act before us; not when we are doing a reorganization bill
without any serious committee of jurisdiction considering the
underlying amendment.
I say again, Mr. Chairman, when we have death penalty, that makes
life complicated from an international point of view. We may have
terrorists who are caught in another country. We cannot get them
extradited because of all of these death penalties and we need to
consider that.
We have heard that the Shoe Bomber was complicated as to which code
section he was under. We have an easy case for attempted murder, plain
and simple. It gives life imprisonment. Certainly the death penalty, if
he had completed the act, would not have made any sense. The death
penalty for a suicide bomber is obviously not going to be much of a
deterrent.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would consider all the
implications and not adopt this amendment at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott). I would like to say that in working through this
amendment, we did work with the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We are also trying to
reform an act here, the 1940 Wrecking Trains statute, that is sorely
outdated and full of gaps. When it was conceived, there was no
conception of a terrorist bombing on mass transportation. I think we
know, obviously from the events in Spain, that that is a very real
possibility in terms of acts of terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to not only pull that
1940s Wrecking Train statute into the modern era, but also to combine
it with other mass transportation sections so that not only the
deterrent but the prosecutorial powers are available to our prosecutors
to be able to use the most stringent and severe punishments that could
possibly be available to try to use as a deterrent to terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, in 2001, we considered this provision when we put it in
the PATRIOT Act. It was inconsistent with an older version. We need to
consider whether we want to conform the law to the newer version or to
the older version. That is why we have committees, so we can assess
what the appropriate punishment is.
Mr. Chairman, 5-minute debates on the floor without committee
consideration does not give us that opportunity. I would hope that we
would delay consideration of this by defeating the amendment and
consider the issue when we do the PATRIOT Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentlewoman from West Virginia whether
or not conspiracies, attempts, and threats are subject to the same
penalties as the underlying offense.

{time} 1000

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. I think there is a lot of prosecutorial discretion in
the bill, and I think that would probably be left up to the prosecutor.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would say again, you
have mandatory minimums in the bill which would not give anybody any
flexibility, and if a conspiracy attempt and threat are subject to the
same mandatory minimums as actually completing the crime, that would be
something that we would want to consider. It is just not clear.
If the gentlewoman wants time to respond, I will give her time.
Mrs. CAPITO. In terms of the death penalty, I think that is
definitely at the discretion of the prosecutor, and there are two sets
of offenses there. One is a 20-year and one is a 30-year minimum, and I
think that is also at the discretion of the prosecutors. That is my
understanding.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would hope we would
defeat the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Capito) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10)
to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism
prevention and prosecution, border security, and international
cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________

Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (House)
Page H8874-H8894

9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

{time} 1002

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence community,
terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and
international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Kolbe (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the committee of the whole rose
earlier today, amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 108-751 by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it shall be in order at
any time for the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence or a designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of
any of the amendment numbers 9, 16, 18, 20, and 22 printed in House
report 108-751.
The amendments en bloc shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The original proponent of the amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Carter

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Carter:
At the end of title II insert the following:

Subtitle J--Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2004

SEC. 2221. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Terrorist Penalties
Enhancement Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2222. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST OFFENSES RESULTING IN
DEATH; DENIAL OF FEDERAL BENEFITS TO
TERRORISTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 2339E. Terrorist offenses resulting in death

``(a) Whoever, in the course of committing a terrorist
offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a
person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term
of years or for life.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `terrorist offense'
means--
``(1) a Federal felony offense that is--
``(A) a Federal crime of terrorism as defined in section
2332b(g) except to the extent such crime is an offense under
section 1363; or
``(B) an offense under this chapter, section 175, 175b,
229, or 831, or section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
or
``(2) a Federal offense that is an attempt or conspiracy to
commit an offense described in paragraph (1).

``Sec. 2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists

``(a) An individual or corporation who is convicted of a
terrorist offense (as defined in section 2339E) shall, as
provided by the court on motion of the Government, be
ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of
years or for life.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `Federal benefit'
has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of the
Controlled Substances Act, and also includes any assistance
or benefit described in section 115(a) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, with the same limitations and to the same extent as
provided in section 115 of that Act with respect to denials
of benefits and assistance to which that section applies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table
of sections at the beginning of the chapter 113B of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new items:

``2339E. Terrorist offenses resulting in death.
``2339F. Denial of federal benefits to terrorists.''.

(c) Aggravating Factor in Death Penalty Cases.--Section
3592(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``section 2339E (terrorist offenses resulting in
death),'' after ``destruction),''.

SEC. 2223. DEATH PENALTY IN CERTAIN AIR PIRACY CASES
OCCURRING BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEATH
PENALTY ACT OF 1994.

Section 60003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, (Public Law 103-322), is amended, as
of the time of its enactment, by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Death Penalty Procedures for Certain Previous
Aircraft Piracy Violations.--An individual convicted of
violating section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, or
its predecessor, may be sentenced to death in accordance with
the procedures established in chapter 228 of title 18, United
States Code, if for any offense committed before the
enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), but after the enactment of
the Antihijacking Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-366), it is
determined by the finder of fact, before consideration of the
factors set forth in sections 3591(a)(2) and 3592(a) and (c)
of title 18, United States Code, that one or more of the
factors set forth in former section 46503(c)(2) of title 49,
United States Code, or its predecessor, has been proven by
the Government to exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that
none of the factors set forth in former section 46503(c)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, or its predecessor, has been
proven by the defendant to exist, by a preponderance of the
information. The meaning of the term `especially heinous,
cruel, or depraved', as used in the factor set forth in
former section 46503(c)(2)(B)(iv) of title 49, United States
Code, or its predecessor, shall be narrowed by adding the
limiting language `in that it involved torture or serious
physical abuse to the victim', and shall be construed as when
that term is used in section 3592(c)(6) of title 18, United
States Code.''
Conform the table of sections accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment, the Terrorist Penalties
Enhancements Act, which will provide new and expanded penalties to
those who commit fatal acts of terrorism.
Since September 11, Federal and State officials continue to work hard
to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. However, despite
some changes to the law to increase penalties after deadly terrorist
attacks, a jury is still denied the ability to consider a death
sentence or life imprisonment for a terrorist in many cases, even when
the attacks result in death and the court believes it is necessary to
prevent further harm to our citizens.
For example, in the case in which a terrorist causes massive loss of
life by sabotaging a nuclear power plant or a national defense
installation, there would be no possibility of imposing the death
penalty under the statutes defining these offenses because they contain

[[Page H8875]]

no death penalty authorizations. In contrast, dozens of other Federal
violent crime provisions authorize up to life imprisonment or the death
penalty in cases where victims are killed. Because the potential
tragedy here is so great, we must hope that changing this law to allow
a sentence of death or life imprisonment will serve as a deterrent to
would-be terrorists. It is one more tool in our arsenal.
Mr. Chairman, hearings have been held on this straightforward
legislation, and it has been agreed to by the House Committee on the
Judiciary. It will make terrorists who kill eligible for the Federal
death penalty. This legislation will also deny these same terrorists
any Federal benefits they otherwise may have been eligible to receive.
These Federal benefits denied include Social Security, welfare,
unemployment and food stamps.
As a former State District Judge for over 20 years, I have presided
over five capital murders trials, three of which resulted in the death
penalty. I understand the gravity of seeking and imposing the death
penalty. However, from my experience, I believe the death penalty is a
tool that can deter acts of terrorism and can serve as a tool for
prosecutors when negotiating sentences.
I am pleased that President George Bush expressed his support for
this legislation. In a speech to the FBI Academy, President Bush said,
``For the sake of American people, Congress should change the law and
give law enforcement officials the same tools they have to fight terror
that they have to fight other crime.''
In Hershey, Pennsylvania, President Bush reemphasized the inequity in
current law. President Bush said, ``We ought to be sending a strong
signal: If you sabotage a defense installation or a nuclear facility in
a way that takes an innocent life, you ought to get the death penalty,
the Federal death penalty.''
This legislation today puts all would-be terrorists on notice that
they will receive ultimate justice should they decide to plan and
execute a future attack.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill creates 23 new death penalties, making all
Federal crimes of terrorism punishable by death. We would remind people
that a 23-year study of over 4,500 death penalty cases found reversible
error in 68 percent of the cases. We suspect that approximately 100
people in the last 10 years have been wrongfully executed. This burden
falls disproportionately on minorities.
So when you talk about a strong signal, the signal, I guess, is you
put people to death because, well, they might have been guilty. We know
in the end the death penalty will not deter suicide bombers from
completing their crimes. Furthermore, we have the problem of
international law, the fact that most countries in the world,
particularly our allies, do not have the death penalty and will not
extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the
death penalty.
One of the problems with the Federal crimes of terrorism is that it
is somewhat vague. It could include some kind of a political protest.
The death could occur by accident. It was not even intended. Somebody
got trampled in the protest, for example, and here you are talking
about the death penalty. But because it includes not only completing
the crime and killing somebody, it includes support for someone. You
might want to rename this the ``Put Mama to Death Bill.'' If a mother
harbors her son, lets him stay at home, she would then become and
everybody in the family becomes subject to the death penalty.
Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with reorganization of the
intelligence community. I would hope that we would reserve judgment on
this and consider this bill and others when we consider the Patriot
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is simple. We must do
everything we can to stop terrorists, and that starts with ensuring
that all terrorist acts are punished swiftly and severely. This
amendment sends a clear message that we take terrorism seriously; that
we understand that terrorist acts are not really crimes, they are
combat; that on 9/11 we were not merely assaulted, we were invaded; and
when there is combat, when terrorists invade our soil in deadly
fashion, we will punish those responsible with the heaviest possible
penalties. To do less would be a disservice to those who have lost
their lives and would send a signal of softness to those who still seek
our destruction.
I was proud to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) on
this subject. I commend him for carrying it forward. It is important
work. It is good work that he is doing. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we will be considering the
Patriot Act. I would hope that we would consider this legislation as
part of that.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) will be postponed.

Amendment En Bloc Offered By Mr. Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous consent
agreement, I offer the amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en
bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hoekstra consisting of
amendments numbered 9, 16, 18, 20 and 22:

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Castle

At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

SEC. 5__. REMOVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY BARRIERS THAT DISCOURAGE
THE DONATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANIES.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004''.
(b) Liability Protection.--A person who donates fire
control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company
shall not be liable for civil damages under any State or
Federal law for personal injuries, property damage or loss,
or death proximately caused by the equipment after the
donation.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (b) does not apply to a person
if--
(1) the person's act or omission proximately causing the
injury, damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence
or intentional misconduct; or
(2) the person is the manufacturer of the fire control or
fire rescue equipment.
(d) Preemption.--This section preempts the laws of any
State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this
section, except that notwithstanding subsection (c) this
section shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection from liability for a person who donates
fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire
company.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any governmental
or other entity.
(2) Fire control or rescue equipment.--The term ``fire
control or fire rescue equipment'' includes any fire vehicle,
fire fighting tool, communications equipment, protective
gear, fire hose, or breathing apparatus.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any other territory or
possession of the United States, and any political
subdivision of any such State, territory, or possession.
(4) Volunteer fire company.--The term ``volunteer fire
company'' means an association of individuals who provide
fire protection and other emergency services, where at least
30 percent of the individuals receive little or no
compensation compared with an entry level full-time paid
individual in that

[[Page H8876]]

association or in the nearest such association with an entry
level full-time paid individual.
(f) Effective Date.--This section applies only to liability
for injury, damage, loss, or death caused by equipment that,
for purposes of subsection (b), is donated on or after the
date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(g) Attorney General Review.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United States
shall conduct a State-by-State review of the donation of
firefighter equipment to volunteer firefighter companies
during the 5-year period ending on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall publish and submit to the Congress a report on
the results of the review conducted under paragraph (1). The
report shall include, for each State, the most effective way
to fund firefighter companies, whether first responder
funding is sufficient to respond to the Nation's needs, and
the best method to ensure that the equipment donated to
volunteer firefighter companies is in usable condition.
____

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

After section 5010 insert the following new section:

SEC. 5011. DIGITAL TELEVISION CONVERSION DEADLINE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress granted television broadcasters additional 6
MHz blocks of spectrum to transmit digital broadcasts
simultaneously with the analog broadcasts they transmit on
their original 6 megahertz blocks of spectrum.
(2) Section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934
requires each television broadcaster to cease analog
transmissions and return 6 megahertz of spectrum by December
31, 2006, or once just over 85 percent of the television
households in that broadcaster's market can view digital
broadcast television channels using a digital television, a
digital-to-analog-converter box, cable service, or satellite
service, whichever is later.
(3) Twenty-four megahertz of spectrum currently occupied by
the television broadcasters has been earmarked for use by
first responders once the television broadcasters return the
spectrum broadcasters currently use to provide analog
transmissions.
(4) This spectrum would be ideal to provide first
responders with interoperable communications channels.
(5) Large parts of the vacated spectrum could be auctioned
for advanced commercial services, such as wireless broadband.
(6) The ``85-percent penetration test'' could delay the
termination of analog television broadcasts and the return of
spectrum well beyond 2007, hindering the use of that spectrum
for these important public-safety and advanced commercial
uses.
(7) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date
certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety
use would not adequately resolve the identified need for
improved public-safety communications interoperability.
Broadcasters estimate that the public-safety only approach
would dislocate as many as 75 stations, including some in
major markets, airing major network programming, sometimes
even in digital form. Unless broadcasters are required to
return concurrently all the spectrum currently used for
analog transmissions, it will be exceedingly difficult to
relocate these 75 stations, which also serve a critical
public safety function by broadcasting weather, traffic,
disaster, and other safety alerts.
(8) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date
certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety
use also would neither address the digital television
transition in a comprehensive fashion nor free valuable
spectrum for advanced commercial services.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Now, therefore, it is the sense of
Congress that section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of
1934 should be amended to eliminate the 85-percent
penetration test and to require broadcasters to cease analog
transmissions at the close of December 31, 2006, so that the
spectrum can be returned and repurposed for important public-
safety and advanced commercial uses.
____

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Fossella

Page 606, after line 17, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly):
(d) Multi-Year Interoperability Grants.--
(1) Multi-year commitments.--In awarding grants to any
State, region, local government, or Indian tribe for the
purposes of enhancing interoperable communications
capabilities for emergency response providers, the Secretary
may commit to obligate Federal assistance beyond the current
fiscal year, subject to the limitations and restrictions in
this subsection.
(2) Restrictions.--
(A) Time limit.--No multi-year interoperability commitment
may exceed 3 years in duration.
(B) Amount of committed funds.--The total amount of
assistance the Secretary has committed to obligate for any
future fiscal year under paragraph (1) may not exceed
$150,000,000.
(3) Letters of intent.--
(A) Issuance.--Pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may
issue a letter of intent to an applicant committing to
obligate from future budget authority an amount, not more
than the Federal Government's share of the project's cost,
for an interoperability communications project (including
interest costs and costs of formulating the project).
(B) Schedule.--A letter of intent under this paragraph
shall establish a schedule under which the Secretary will
reimburse the applicant for the Federal Government's share of
the project's costs, as amounts become available, if the
applicant, after the Secretary issues the letter, carries out
the project before receiving amounts under a grant issued by
the Secretary.
(C) Notice to secretary.--An applicant that is issued a
letter of intent under this subsection shall notify the
Secretary of the applicant's intent to carry out a project
pursuant to the letter before the project begins.
(D) Notice to congress.--The Secretary shall transmit a
written notification to the Congress no later than 3 days
before the issuance of a letter of intent under this section.
(E) Limitations.--A letter of intent issued under this
section is not an obligation of the Government under section
1501 of title 31, United States Code, and is not deemed to be
an administrative commitment for financing. An obligation or
administrative commitment may be made only as amounts are
provided in authorization and appropriations laws.
(F) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed--
(i) to prohibit the obligation of amounts pursuant to a
letter of intent under this subsection in the same fiscal
year as the letter of intent is issued; or
(ii) to apply to, or replace, Federal assistance intended
for interoperable communications that is not provided
pursuant to a commitment under this subsection.
(e) Interoperable Communications Plans.--Any applicant
requesting funding assistance from the Secretary for
interoperable communications for emergency response providers
shall submit an Interoperable Communications Plan to the
Secretary for approval. Such a plan shall--
(1) describe the current state of communications
interoperability in the applicable jurisdictions among
Federal, State, and local emergency response providers and
other relevant private resources;
(2) describe the available and planned use of public safety
frequency spectrum and resources for interoperable
communications within such jurisdictions;
(3) describe how the planned use of spectrum and resources
for interoperable communications is compatible with
surrounding capabilities and interoperable communications
plans of Federal, State, and local governmental entities,
military installations, foreign governments, critical
infrastructure, and other relevant entities;
(4) include a 5-year plan for the dedication of Federal,
State, and local government and private resources to achieve
a consistent, secure, and effective interoperable
communications system, including planning, system design and
engineering, testing and technology development, procurement
and installation, training, and operations and maintenance;
and
(5) describe how such 5-year plan meets or exceeds any
applicable standards and grant requirements established by
the Secretary.
____

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Mica

Page 198, after line 22, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subparagraphs of the quoted matter
accordingly):
``(D) Prescreening international passengers.--Not later
than 60 days after date of enactment of this subparagraph,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the designee of the
Secretary, shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that
will allow the Department of Homeland Security to compare
passenger name records for any international flight to or
from the United States against the consolidated and
integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal
Government before departure of the flight.
Page 199, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the
following:
``(F) Appeal procedures.--
``(i) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish
a timely and fair process for individuals identified as a
threat under one or more of subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E)
to appeal to the Transportation Security Administration the
determination and correct any erroneous information.
``(ii) Records.--The process shall include the
establishment of a method by which the Assistant Secretary
will be able to maintain a record of air passengers who have
been misidentified and have corrected erroneous information.
To prevent repeated delays of misidentified passengers, the
Transportation Security Administration record shall contain
information determined by the Assistant Secretary to
authenticate the identity of such a passenger.
Page 203, lines 5 and 6, strike ``explosive detection
systems'' and insert ``explosive detection devices''.
Page 203, line 9, insert ``backscatter x-ray scanners,''
after ``shoe scanners,''.
Page 213, after line 9, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

[[Page H8877]]

SEC. 2188. IN-LINE CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING.

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such action
as may be necessary to expedite the installation and use of
advanced in-line baggage-screening equipment at commercial
airports.
Page 213, line 10, redesignate section 2188 of the bill as
section 2189 and conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
____

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Shadegg

In title V, at the end of chapter 3 of subtitle H (page
609, after line 21) add the following:

SEC. __. PILOT STUDY TO MOVE WARNING SYSTEMS INTO THE MODERN
DIGITAL AGE.

(a) Pilot Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, from
funds available for improving the national system to notify
the general public in the event of a terrorist attack, and in
consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies, the National Association of
State Chief Information Officers, and other stakeholders with
respect to public warning systems, shall conduct a pilot
study under which the Secretary may issue public warnings
regarding threats to homeland security using a warning system
that is similar to the AMBER Alert communications network.
(b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report regarding the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the pilot study.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier
today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman) or her designee each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
This en bloc amendment has been agreed to in a bipartisan fashion
which supports the amendments that have been offered by the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
I encourage my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment and move
the process forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition to the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There is one bill, the firefighters bill, that is in here, we
considered that, and we had a debate on it. I just want to incorporate
by reference the problems with that legislation. It is not necessary
because firefighters can receive gifts, and if they want to immunize
the donor, they can do that under present law.
Furthermore, the answer to giving firefighters more equipment is in
funding first responders equipment, rather than tort reform. So I would
hope that we would consider that as we consider the en bloc amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence for yielding me time.
This is sort of like a deja vu discussion, that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have had this discussion before. I feel this
legislation is necessary. There are some States that have waived the
liability provisions to allow corporations to make donations of
equipment to fire companies without liability, which is very, very
important. A lot of these companies have very good and new equipment,
hardly used because their fire needs are not as great as regular fire
companies. They are willing to make this donation, but they are
reluctant to do so because of the liability issues.

{time} 1015

A few States have waived those provisions but others have not. We
simply would allow this throughout this country. I cannot imagine
anything that is more dutiful or more beneficial to fighting fires in
this country than this.
So he opposed this before, and I said at the time, I hope he is the
only one who is opposing this, and, he almost was. There were three
people who opposed it. It carried by 397 to 3. Obviously, it has to do
with what we are dealing with in this country in terms of terrorism, in
terms of the problems of dealing with security in the United States of
America, intelligence and all those other areas. Quite frankly, it is
something that a lot of people want to get done, but we have got to
find the vehicle for it, and this is a proper vehicle.
It was unopposed and that is the reason it was put in the en bloc
amendment, agreed to by Members on both sides of the aisle. My sense is
this is something that each and every one of us should be supporting so
that both our rural and our urban fire departments can take advantage
of this particular type of law and have emergency vehicles and other
equipment donated to them without that concern of liability.
I would hope that his concerns about that, which he has expressed,
would not lead to opposition to the en bloc amendment and, hopefully,
ultimately, the passage of this, and we will all be protected.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Delaware
has indicated, we have had this debate before, and I would just point
out that my concerns with parts of the amendment are outweighed by the
support of the other provisions in the other bills in the bloc. So I
will not be opposing the bloc.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 10
which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1787, the ``Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act.'' On September 14 this
legislation overwhelming passed the U.S. House of Representatives 397
to 3.
My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some
organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire
departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability
has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment, rather than
donating it to volunteer, rural and other financially-strapped
departments.
We know that every day, across the United States, firefighters
respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and
women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We
may presume that our firefighters work in departments with the latest
and best firefighting and protective equipment. When in reality there
are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to
a lack of basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it
difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the
same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the
fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art
innovation. Sometimes, the surplus equipment has never been used to put
out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many
organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of
quality fire equipment.
Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable
service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer
firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion
a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than
19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer.
Ten states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana,
Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Texas have passed similar
legislation. In the seven years of the Texas program more than $12
million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to
needy departments--this includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles, more
than 1,500 piece of communications equipment. In total more than 33,000
items have been donated.
Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil
liability barriers. Equipping our nation's first responders is
essential as we fight the war on terror and I am

[[Page H8878]]

hopeful the esteemed Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and my
colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
sponsored by the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
This Sense of Congress sets out the right approach for this nation to
move toward the digital television transition and return much-needed
spectrum for public-safety and advanced commercial purposes, such as
wireless broadband. The Congress, the Federal Communications
Commission, as well as the telecommunications industry have spent
valuable time and money for the advancement of the transition. A hard
date will bring certainty to all those involved in this transition.
The Senate, in its just passed National Intelligence Reform bill,
included a 2008 hard deadline for broadcasters to vacate only portions
of the 700 MHz spectrum reserved for public safety. I do not believe
this is the correct approach, nor do I believe that it adequately
solves the public safety issue.
I commend the Chairman for his amendment and I look forward to our
continued work as we move from an analog to a digital world.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amendment offered by
my colleague and good friend, Mr. Shadegg of Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg is a distinguished Member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security and ably serves as Chairman of its Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness & Response.
Under Chairman Shadegg's leadership, the EP&R Subcommittee recently
held a very informative and eye-opening hearing on the state of our
Nation's warning and alert system.
The Amendment that he is offering today is the product of that
excellent hearing.
I commend Chairman Shadegg for his foresight in recognizing the
importance of emergency warnings and alerts, and for his leadership in
offering this important Amendment.
It is simply imperative that our Nation maintain and operate an
effective emergency communication system. It is our responsibility to
ensure that our citizens receive sufficient and timely warnings to
enable them to take action necessary for their safety--whether the
cause is a terrorist attack or a force of nature.
This Amendment authorizes a pilot study examining whether a system
like the AMBER Alert network should, and can, be used for emergency
warnings and alerts. The AMBER Alert network, which provides actionable
intelligence on a geographic basis to help identify and track missing
children, is a proven success. This Amendment is certainly worthy of
our support.
Let me again commend Chairman Shadegg. And I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the Shadegg Amendment.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Mica amendment, which will go a long way in making certain our
skies are safe and free of terrorism.
I would like to focus my comments on important provisions in this
amendment that will help ensure the civil liberties of all of America's
citizens are protected during this war on terrorism. I thank Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman Mica for including this language in his
amendment, which I had submitted to the Rules Committee as a separate
amendment.
There is no question that we should be vigilant in our fight against
terrorism or that increased security measures will serve to
inconvenience some of our citizens. However, forcing certain law-
abiding citizens to be repeatedly detained and questioned each time
they travel should not be tolerated.
This amendment will establish a process for the Transportation
Security Administration to ensure those passengers who are erroneously
flagged under its new pre-screening system are not unnecessarily
delayed on future flights.
To illustrate the importance of addressing this issue, I would like
to highlight an example of a family in my district who has been
repeatedly delayed when traveling.
The most recent case occurred this summer, when returning from an
oversees trip. The family was met by officials as they deplaned and
escorted to a holding room at JFK Airport. During their detainment,
officials thoroughly inspected the family's luggage and would not even
allow them to go to the restroom without escort. The family was
extensively questioned about their background and employment.
It took over three hours for the officials to clear and release the
family. Unfortunately, the long delay caused them to miss their
connecting flight to California.
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this family was
delayed due to the nature of our law enforcement databases, which can
give rise to ``near matches'' and ``tentative hits,'' resulting in
misidentification scenarios.
This was not the first time this family was delayed because of the
similarity of their name to names that appear on watch lists.
Unfortunately, according to the Department of Homeland Security, it
will not be the last--the family should expect similar detainment in
the future because of this shortcoming in our law enforcement
databases.
Some of you might say that this is the price American citizens of
Middle-Eastern descent must pay to ensure safety in our skies.
But we must ask ourselves--how do we protect those unfortunate
Americans, who share names that are similar to dangerous people on
terrorist watch lists, from being effectively denied the ability to
fly?
There is no question that we must encourage our security officials to
be vigilant. But, it is reasonable to expect that the Transportation
Security Administration be able to maintain their watch lists to ensure
that the system does not continue to erroneously flag the same law-
abiding citizens every time they try to travel on a plane.
I believe this can be done in a way that maintains aviation security,
improves the effectiveness of watch lists, and demonstrates to our
fellow Americans of Middle-Eastern descent that America affords the
same freedoms and opportunities to all of its law-abiding citizens,
even during this war on terrorism.
Specifically, this amendment will: establish a timely and fair
process for individuals identified as a threat to appeal the
determination and correct any erroneous information; include a method
by which TSA will be able to maintain a record of air passengers who
have been misidentified; and prevent repeated delays of misidentified
passengers by ensuring the record contain information determined by TSA
to authenticate the identity of such a passenger.
As we work toward policies that secure our homeland, we must not
forget that there are U.S. citizens who are of Middle Eastern descent.
They have greatly contributed to American society and are deserving of
equal treatment under the Constitution of the United States.
These various cultures and races became citizens of the United States
just as our ancestors did, and they are our neighbors, co-workers,
friends, and family members. Most of all, they are our fellow
Americans.
It is unfortunate that these Americans have been forced to bear the
brunt of our increased security.
In the past, when American law enforcement confronted challenges to
our safety and security from espionage, drug trafficking and organized
crime, we were able to meet those challenges in ways that preserved our
fundamental freedoms and civil liberties.
We must meet the challenge of terrorism with this same careful regard
for the Constitutional rights of Americans and respect for all human
beings.
Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
unanimously approved these provisions and I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment today.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton Amendment.
Part of the spectrum which the broadcasters are to return at the end
of the DTV transition has been earmarked for public safety
interoperable radio communications. The tragic events of 9/11
underscore the need for this, and that is why we must move with
deliberate speed to complete the transition.
But moving with deliberate speed does not mean moving recklessly, and
it does not mean grasping at well-intentioned half-measures that would
either cause scores of television stations to literally go dark or
would actually set us back in our efforts to get spectrum into the
hands of public safety because they are riddled with ill-defined
exceptions.
Moreover, we need to consider consumers' analog television sets which
could go dark once broadcasters cease analog broadcasts--if we do not
take care to do this right. Helping public safety and minimizing
consumer disruptions need not be mutually goals.
I support the Barton amendment because it says that we should impose
a hard-date for the end of the entire transition as part of a
comprehensive digital television transition bill to be enacted next
Congress. I look forward to working in the Energy and Commerce
Committee next Congress on this and other proposals to minimize
consumer disruptions, focusing on how to get low-cost digital-to-analog
converter boxes into the hands of consumers, not to mention other
policy matters that are relevant to the transition. The Barton
Amendment signs us up to move--not with reckless abandon--but with
deliberate speed to ensure that we really get spectrum into the hands
of public safety in an expeditious fashion.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Barton Amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fossella-
Stupak amendment. From the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to
the attacks on September 11, 2001, the inability of our first
responders to communicate adequately and effectively has posed a
serious obstacle to our Nation's ability to respond to acts of
terrorism and other emergencies.
Regrettably, there is no silver bullet or panacea that will enable us
to attain interoperable

[[Page H8879]]

communications overnight. And, contrary to the good intentions of some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, merely throwing more
money at the problem or creating new grant programs is not the answer.
We already have enough programs.
Indeed, since 2002, the Federal government has awarded more than $1.2
billion in grant assistance specifically for the purpose of enhancing
interoperable communications. And, unfortunately, our progress has been
disappointing. The primary reason for this--according to the Government
Accountability Office--is that Federal interoperable communications
grant programs ``present challenges to short- and long-term planning.''
That is why I rise in support of the Fossella-Stupak Amendment. It
does not create a new interoperable communications grant program.
Rather, it gives the Department of Homeland Security much needed
flexibility to support State and local short- and long-term planning
for interoperable communications.

Specifically, under the Fossella-Stupak Amendment, the Department may
issue Letters of Intent to commit future funding for interoperable
communications for up to three years. These commitments must be made
pursuant to existing grant programs.
States and local governments have been reluctant to invest in
expensive and complicated communication systems due to uncertainty over
the availability of Federal funds from year to year. Providing cash-
strapped States and local governments with reasonable assurance that
multi-year Federal assistance will be available should spur
comprehensive planning and meaningful investments in communications.
The Fossella-Stupak Amendment also requires applicants to develop
multi-year interoperable communication plans. Such plans are essential
for long-term planning, such as coordinating communications strategies
with different agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and for
preventing funds from being wasted on hastily planned systems.
I understand that numerous fire service and law enforcement groups,
State and local government organizations, and other entities
representing the public safety community played a key role in drafting
this Amendment. They and I support this Amendment, and so should you.
I commend Representatives Fossella and Stupak for their leadership
and vision in offering this important Amendment.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this Amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chairman Barton that the
digital television transition has taken too long and that we need to
quickly get our police officers, firefighters, and other first
responders an additional 24 megahertz of spectrum to help them safely
do their jobs. This spectrum, currently occupied by television channels
63, 64, 68, and 69, is set to be turned over to first responders once
the stations broadcasting on those channels transition to digital. Can
the federal government speed this up?
Some have proposed getting first responders this spectrum more
quickly by requiring certain broadcasters to return their spectrum by
the end of 2006. This suggestion, though well intentioned, is a
simplistic approach to a complex problem. It does not ensure that the
public safety sector will be ready to use this new spectrum. Also, this
suggestion, by supplanting certain broadcasters directly, and shutting
down others to prevent interference, will prevent many consumers from
receiving important programming such as local news and weather.
Finally, it will also disproportionately harm the Hispanic community by
shutting down a number of Spanish-language stations.
Likewise, the amendment before us today does not reflect the
complexity of this issue. Although I agree with Chairman Barton that we
need to speed up the digital transition, the amendment declares that we
should establish a hard deadline of December 31, 2006, when all analog
television broadcasts on all channels would cease. Such an absolute
declaration is premature. It would not allow enough time for affordable
equipment to come to market or to properly educate consumers about the
transition. Moreover, it could result in many consumers losing their
television service. That must not happen.
Congress needs to address the digital transition issue soon in a
comprehensive way, addressing, among others, three major issues. First,
we need to expedite public safety's access to new spectrum and provide
them with certainty so they know when they will be receiving new
spectrum. Certainty will allow first responders time to plan how to use
the spectrum. It will also allow them time to line up the funding
necessary to make use of the spectrum once it becomes available.
Second, we need to implement a far-reaching plan to educate consumers
on what will happen once the digital transition is complete. It is
important that consumers know when the transition will take place, how
it will take place, and what it means for them with regard to their
television viewing.
Third, consumers should not bear unfair cost burdens, and we need to
have a program in place to provide subsidies so that no one is left
behind as the United States transitions to digital television.
I am pleased that Chairman Barton recognizes the need to tackle these
issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I cannot
support the amendment before us today because it is premature and could
lead to consumers losing their television service.
I am confident, however, that regardless of which party controls the
House next Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will work on
a bipartisan basis to properly address these issues in a way that will
speed up the digital transition, provide certainty to public safety
regarding new spectrum, and protect consumers from losing their
television service.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered makes several
non-controversial, but important changes:
First, it prevents a repeat of the ``Cat Stevens'' incident.
On September 21st, Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, was
allowed to board United Flight 919 from London to Washington, DC.
The plane was hundreds of miles over the Atlantic before it was
discovered that Mr. Islam was on the terrorist watchlist. Fortunately,
the plane was diverted to Maine without incident. That plane should
never have left the ground with Mr. Islam on board.
My amendment requires DHS to compare the names of international
passengers to the terrorist watch-lists prior to the flight's
departure, and it ensures that future flights will not take off with
known terrorists on board.
Secondly, my amendment requires TSA to establish an appeal process
for passengers wrongly placed on terror watchlists.
It also establishes a process for DHS to track passengers erroneously
flagged under the Department's new pre-screening system.
The watchlists are incredibly important tools, but they are far from
perfect.
Last week, I learned that several members of Congress, including the
Chairman of the Transportation Committee, have been prevented from
boarding airliners because they shared the first and last name of
someone on the watchlist.
This provision will ensure that they and others are not unnecessarily
delayed on future flights.
Lastly, this amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to
take all necessary actions to expedite the installation and use of
advanced in-line baggage-screening equipment at commercial airports.
I am disappointed that language to provide innovative non-Federal
financing for these systems was not included in H.R. 10 due to
shortsighted CBO scorekeeping.
However, I do believe the Administration has the authority to pursue
this approach, and hopefully, this section will encourage them to do
so.
We worked closely with members on both sides of the aisle to develop
this amendment. A similar amendment passed the Transportation Committee
unanimously last week and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor
of this amendment.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Amendment
being offered by Mr. Barton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. First, I would like to thank Chairman Barton for his
leadership on this issue. I agree with Chairman Barton that H.R. 10 is
not the vehicle by which to effectively transition this precious public
spectrum to public safety and valuable commercial and non-licensed
uses. In order to address all issues and concerns, we must take a
comprehensive approach and develop a comprehensive solution so that our
first responders receive all the tools they need and the American
people receive the unimaginable benefits of digital technology. The
Senate proposal is the wrong approach and I hope we will work to
accomplish our goal in a more all-inclusive process focusing on all
broadcast issues. We cannot effectively address the digital transition
piece by piece. I look forward to working with Chairman Barton on this
very important issue in order to find a date that is appropriate and
achievable in order to effectively transition to that new and exciting
digital age of television that will promote public safety, encourage
innovation, create jobs, and benefit all Americans.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense
of the Congress that the way to get valuable spectrum promptly into the
hands of public safety officials without shutting off consumers'
televisions is to enact comprehensive, hard-deadline digital television
legislation.
The Senate-passed 9/11 bill, however, requires the return of only a
portion of that spectrum, rather than all the spectrum that
broadcasters are currently using for analog broadcasts. Broadcasters
estimate that these provisions would shut off as many as 75 stations.

[[Page H8880]]

Many of these broadcasters carry major networks in major markets.
Because the Senate bill does not require the other broadcasters to
vacate their analog spectrum, there will be nowhere to relocate these
75 stations.
By waiting until the 109th Congress set a date-certain for all
broadcasters to clear the spectrum they use for analog broadcasts, we
can turn spectrum over to public safety sooner, and all broadcasters
will be able to move to their final digital channels. The remaining
spectrum can be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as
wireless broadband. Some of the billions of dollars generated can then
be used for digital-to-analog converter boxes so that households
relying on over-the-air analog broadcasts can continue to use their
analog televisions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the Sense of the
Congress that the responsible policy should be to address this issue
comprehensively through regular order, not in a piecemeal fashion on a
bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I look forward
next year to working with Ranking Minority Member Dingell, Subcommittee
Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Markey, along
with all of the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to pass
hard-deadline legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment so that public safety gets its needed spectrum without making
televisions go dark.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 10 printed in House Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Foley

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. Offered by Mr. Foley:
Page 328, after line 7, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly)

Subtitle F--Treatment of Aliens Who Commit Acts of Torture,
Extrajudicial Killings, or Other Atrocities Abroad

SEC. 3121. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS WHO
HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS ABROAD.

(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct
that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is
inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States
that would, if committed in the United States or by a United
States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial
killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has
committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of--

``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of
title 18, United States Code; or
``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any
extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);

is inadmissible.''; and
(3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants
in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting
``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting
``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in
nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting
``Participated in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3122. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

(a) Ground of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed
particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any
alien who, while serving as a foreign government official,
was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.''.
(b) Ground of Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations
of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section
212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.

SEC. 3123. WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.

Section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''.

SEC. 3124. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.

Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described
in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi
persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts
of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G)
(relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.

SEC. 3125. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of
Special Investigations with the authority to detect and
investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to
denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security in making
determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or
extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take
against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E),
consideration shall be given to--
``(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the
laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the
basis for removal and denaturalization; or
``(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a
foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a
prosecution for such conduct.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the additional duties established under section
103(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by
this subtitle) in order to ensure that the Office of Special
Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding
Nazi war criminals.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.

SEC. 3126. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on implementation of this subtitle that includes a
description of--
(1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of
Special Investigations and other components within the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security
in a manner consistent with the amendments made by this
subtitle;
(2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to
reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made
by the amendments contained in this subtitle; and
(3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the
amendments made by this subtitle.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of our amendment, the Foley-Ackerman
amendment to H.R. 10, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act that will
help strengthen our Nation's security.
Every year, according to Amnesty International, an estimated 800 to
1,000 war criminals and human rights abusers seek refuge in the United
States.

[[Page H8881]]

Due to loopholes in current law, these criminals could be living in our
States, in our towns, and even in our neighborhoods. There is nothing
in current U.S. law to bar such monsters from the United States or to
legally justify their removal from our country.
This headline, the INS says it cannot deport them. The Justice
Department will not prosecute them. Torturers, death squad leaders, and
human rights criminals who seek refuge in the United States have
nothing to fear except their victims.
Let me be perfectly clear: Torturers are terrorists. Many of us here
today probably think of torturers as domestic terrorists, those just
committing unspeakable crimes in their own Nations, but that cannot be
further from the truth.
Let us look at the facts. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba,
Sudan, the former regimes in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and Iraq, they
are all State sponsors of terrorism, and all have some of the worst
human rights records in history. They detain people for indefinite
periods of time, commit brutal acts of torture and kill with little
regard for human life. We would be naive to believe that torturers and
terrorists are in many ways not one in the same.
The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation amendment, which the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and I have worked on for over 4\1/2\
years, we are offering it today, will give the Federal Government
another weapon in our war on terror. This amendment will, among other
things, make aliens who commit torture or other human rights violations
inadmissible and removable.
This bipartisan and bicameral provision will strengthen H.R. 10 by
adding additional layers to our immigration laws, barring these
criminals with clear ties to terror from even entering our country.
For decades, those who have committed some of the most horrific acts
against humanity have sought sanctuary here with impunity. This
amendment would strip their protection once and for all. We cannot let
these criminals continue to be around our families any longer. They
have committed crimes against their own people. They have committed
crimes against the United States. They have committed crimes against
humanity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the
time in opposition and will be in favor of the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I want to say it has been a privilege to work with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on a completely nonpartisan basis
for almost half a decade on this particular legislation.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment closes the loophole that currently
allows war criminals who enter the United States to remain in the
United States. This measure enjoys bipartisan support in both the House
and the Senate. A bill sponsored by the chairman and ranking Democrat
on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, has
been reported out of the Judiciary Committee in that body.
At this very moment, with our Nation engaged in a conflict in Iraq,
which previously had a regime that committed every kind of grotesque
criminal behavior that our Nation deplores, the U.S. Code provides no,
again, no, assurance that Saddam Hussein's henchmen, Iraqi war
criminals, perpetrators of torture or atrocities from there or other
places could not somehow come into the United States and enjoy the very
benefits that they have so cruelly deprived of others.
It is hard to believe but it is true. Some of Saddam Hussein's most
brutal thugs, if they were able to hide their past and slip past the
INS, they could conceivably apply and receive either U.S. permanent
resident status or even possibly citizenship.
How do we know this? Because war criminals from other conflicts have
been surreptitiously coming to the United States since World War II. We
cannot continue to leave the United States open to monsters who have
committed horrible atrocities against innocent civilians, and we need
to slam that door shut and to shut it tightly. We must also capture
those war criminals who have already entered the United States and show
them the door.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment provides the Justice Department's Office
of Special Investigation, the OSI, with the statutory authority to hunt
down these thugs and criminals and, through the courts, remove them
from our country.
The OSI is currently tasked with finding and expelling Nazi war
criminals seeking to evade the consequences of their unprecedented and
horrific crimes. Since its creation in 1979, this elite team of
prosecutors and investigators has been methodically removing Nazi war
criminals who were able to sneak into the United States. Based on its
terrific past performance, its current readiness, and most critically,
its desire to perform the mission, OSI is the right agency to ensure
that this land remain free from the most vile criminals and violators
of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, the very notion that anyone who has perpetuated
genocide or committed these horrible crimes, these acts of torture,
would be able to get into the United States is shocking enough. The
fact that there is currently no law on the books to find these
criminals and to remove them from our country is even worse. War
criminals should have no safe haven or refuge anywhere, least of all in
this land of liberty, and that is why I am encouraging all of our
colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote in support of the Foley-Ackerman
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Claims.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foley-
Ackerman amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation
Act. This important amendment will close a longstanding gap that has
allowed thousands of aliens who have tortured or otherwise abused the
human rights of untold numbers in their home country to live in the
United States.
They are living here in our country the lives that many of their
victims will never enjoy. As we continue our war on terror, we must do
everything in our power to make sure that our Federal agencies have the
tools they need to ensure our safety.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment will take such a step. This amendment
will keep our country safe by barring admission into the United States
and authorizing the deportation of any foreigner who has committed acts
of torture or other human rights abuses abroad.
These criminals have committed some of the most atrocious acts ever
imagined by mankind. We can no longer be a safe haven for those who
seek to do us harm and have proven this by doing grave harm to others
in the countries they have fled.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important
amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for the time.
I rise to support this amendment because it spells out that
immigrants who have committed torture or extrajudicial killings abroad
are not eligible to enter the United States, and it changes the
provisions that makes immigrants inadmissible if they have committed
acts of genocide. The amendment also expands an existing bar against
government officials who have committed severe violations of religious
freedom.
I want to thank and commend the two gentlemen, and that is why I
believe it is very important that H.R. 10 is clearly stripped of any
violations of the convention against torture and to make sure that as
we are consistent in

[[Page H8882]]

denying into the United States those who would commit genocide, torture
and other heinous acts, that we accept the responsibility of having the
high moral ground, making sure that no legislation that we pass would
deport any alien to a place where they might be tortured and subjected
to such horrific acts.
This is a very strong amendment. It puts us on the right side of the
column, protecting those who would be subjected to the violence of
those who would be interested in coming to this country, and I support
the gentlemen in this amendment and would ask that we also consider the
elimination of such language in our own H.R. 10. I support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
has one-half minute remaining.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield
our time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler),
Richard Krieger from my district, who brought this important issue to
our attention who has been diligently tracking and identifying these
criminals.
Let me read a couple of names: Marko Boskic, Bosnia, member of a
group that killed 1,200 Bosnian Muslims in one day; Major General Jean-
Claude Duperval, Haiti, implicated in the massacre at Raboteau, Haiti,
1994; Nikola Vukovic, beat Bosnian Muslims with rifles and metal pipes;
Mohamed Ali Samatar from Somalia, oversaw the killing of more than
50,000 northern Somali Issaks; Abdi Ali Nur from Somalia, assisted in
sham trials and the execution of hundreds of civilians. That is just a
few of them.
I will enter this into the Record at this point so people can see.

TABLE OF INDIVIDUALS ACCUSED OF ATROCITIES
[Arranged by Time of Atrocity Committed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Country Crime Time of atrocities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ricardo Anderson Kohatsu.... Peru.................. Implicated in the torture 1997
of Leonor La Rosa and
Mariela Lucy Barreto. La
Rosa was paralyzed,
Barreto was killed.
Marko Boskic....................... Bosnia................ Member of group that killed July 15, 1995
1,200 Bosnian Muslims in
one day.
Major Gen. Jean-Claude Duperval.... Haiti................. Implicated in massacre at 1994
Raboteau, Haiti.
Jean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka..... Rwanda................ Part of an elite group that 1994
ordered the killings of
500,000 Tutsis.
Nikola Vukovic..................... Bosnia................ Beat Bosnian Muslims with 1992-1994
rifles and metal pipes.
Carved a religious symbol
into the forehead of one
prisoner.
Emanuel ``Toto'' Constant.......... Haiti................. Created paramilitary 1991-1994
organization that killed
over 3,000 pro-democracy
activists.
Carl Dorelien...................... Haiti................. Oversaw the deaths of 5,000 1991-1994
people.
Zijad Muzic........................ Bosnia................ Ethnic cleansing of Croats 1991-1993
and Bosnian Muslims.
Jackson Joanis..................... Haiti................. Accused of torture and Early 1990s
murder.
Thioun Prasith..................... Cambodia.............. Implicated in the deaths of Late 1970s-1993
thousands of people.
Mohamed Ali Samatar................ Somalia............... Oversaw killing of more 1971-1990
than 50,000 northern
Somali Issaks.
Juan Lopez Grijalba................ Honduras.............. Military chief accused of 1980s
murder and torture of
civilians.
Jaime Ramirez Raudales............. Honduras.............. Charged with political 1980s
murders.
Abdi Ali Nur....................... Somalia............... Assisted in sham trials and Late 1980s
the executions of hundreds
of civilians.
Luis Discua........................ Honduras.............. Killed dozens of leftists 1980s
in Honduras.
Alvaro Rafael Saravia Marino....... Honduras.............. Murdered Salvadoran 1980
archbishop.
Kelbessa Negewo.................... Ethiopia.............. Tortured, beat and raped 1978
Ethiopians.
Armando Fernando Larios............ Chile................. Helped kill Chile's foreign 1976
minister.
Gen. Fernando Vecino Alegret, Vietnam............... Cuban interrogator that 1967
a.k.a. ``Fidel''. tortured American POWs
during Vietnam War.
Helmut Oberlander.................. Ukraine............... Belonged to Nazi death 1941-1943
squad that killed
thousands of Jews.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General

Iran: Pro-democracy Iranian Students tortured in 1970s.
Iraq: Dissidents against Ba'ath party regime systematically
tortured.
Afghanistan: Taliban.
Sources sorted by name of accused individuals:
1. Kohatsu: ``U.S. Becoming haven for Torturers.'' San
Diego Union Tribune, April 10, 2002.
2. Boskic: Rupert, James. ``Accused killer in Bosnian war
makes a life in U.S.'' New York Newsday, Sep. 13, 2004.
3. Duperval: Daniel, Trenton and Susannah A. Nesmith.
``Abusers back in the streets; Some of Haiti's most notorious
human rights abusers walk the streets openly now.'' The Miami
Herald. March 15, 2004.
4. Mudahinyuka: Korecki, Natasha. ``More charges for Rwanda
suspect.'' Chicago Sun-Times. May 15, 2004.
5.Vukovic: Dart, Bob. ``U.S. is a haven for foreign war
criminals.'' Austin American Statesman. April 11, 2002.
6. Constant: ``Torture suspects find haven in U.S.'' Miami
Herald. Aug. 1, 2001.
7. Dorelien: Wilber, Del Quentin. ``Rights abusers can find
haven.'' Baltimore Sun. Aug. 28, 2000.
8. Muzic: Fainaru, Steve. ``Suspect in `cleansing' by Serbs
living in Vt.'' The Boston Globe. May 3, 1999.
9. Joanis: Benjamin, Jody A. ``Haitian enforcer makes bid
to stay put.'' Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. June. 22, 2001.
10. Prasith: Fifield, Adam. ``Apologist in suburbia.'' The
Village Voice. May 5, 1998.
11. Samatar: Ragavan, Chitra. ``A safe haven, but for
whom?'' U.S. News and World Report. Nov. 15, 1999.
12. Grijalba: ``Foley introduces bill to stop influx of
criminals here.'' Sun-Herald.com. April 4, 2003. http://
www.sun-herald.com.
13. Raudales: Valbrun, Marjorie. ``U.S. to pursue torturers
who flee here--Move seeks to address `nexus' between human-
rights abusers and national-security risks.'' The Wall Street
Journal. May 8, 2003.
14. Abdi Ali Nur: Ragavan, Chitra. ``A safe haven, but
whom?'' U.S. News and World Report. Nov. 15, 1999.
15. Discua: ``Foley introduces bill to stop influx of
criminals here.'' Sun-Herald.com. April 4, 2003. http://
www.sun-herald.com
16. Marino: Charvy, Alfonso and Elizabeth Donovan.
``Torture suspects find haven.'' The Miami Herald. July 22,
2001.
17. Negewo: Dart, Bob. ``U.S. is a haven for torturers,
report says; many settle here illegally.'' The Atlanta-
Journal Constitution. April 11, 2002.
18. Larios: Valbrun, Marjorie. ``U.S. to pursue torturers
who flee here--Move seeks to address `nexus' between human-
rights abusers and national-security risks.'' The Wall Street
Journal. May 8, 2003.
19. Alegret a.k.a. ``FIDEL'': Alfonso, Pablo and Sonji
Jacobs. ``Ex-POW identifies Cuban dignitary as his chief
tormentor.'' The Miami Herald. Sep. 9, 1999.
20. Oberlander: Staletovitch, Jenny. ``New law would send
modern war criminals packing.'' The Palm Beach Post. Jan. 18,
2000.

These are articles from papers about criminals living in the United
States.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important national
security measure. I thank my legislative counsel and legal director,
Bradley Schreiber, and my staff for working so diligently.
As I mentioned, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and I have
been doing this now for 4\1/2\ plus years. It has finally come to
fruition. We thank our colleagues. We urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
Page 235, after line 21, insert the following:

Subtitle J--Pretrial Detention and Postrelease Supervision of
Terrorists

SEC. 2221. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Pretrial Detention and
Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2222. PRESUMPTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION IN CASES
INVOLVING TERRORISM.

Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by inserting ``or'' before ``the Maritime''; and
(B) by inserting after ``or 2332b of title 18 of the United
States Code'' the following: ``, or

[[Page H8883]]

an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of
the United States Code, if the Attorney General certifies
that the offense appears by its nature or context to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnaping, or an offense
involved in or related to domestic or international terrorism
as defined in section 2331 of title 18 of the United States
Code''; and
(2) in subsections (f)(1)(A) and (g)(1), by inserting after
``violence'' the following: ``, or an offense listed in
section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of the United States Code,
if the Attorney General certifies that the offense appears by
its nature or context to be intended to intimidate or coerce
a civilian population, to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnaping, or an offense involved in or related to
domestic or international terrorism as defined in section
2331 of title 18 of the United States Code''.

SEC. 2223. POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION OF TERRORISTS.

Section 3583(j) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
in subsection (j), by striking ``, the commission'' and all
that follows through ``person,''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

{time} 1030

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply create a rebuttable
presumption that no amount of bail or other conditions would assure the
appearance in court of a defendant when he is charged with a terrorist
offense and there is probable cause that the defendant committed
certain terrorist acts. This bill simply creates a rebuttable
presumption which can be overcome by evidence that the defendant would
appear in court.
This presumption that a defendant would not show up in court already
applies to those who are charged with major drug crimes and certain
violent crimes. If it is good enough for drug dealers and violent
criminals, it should be good enough for terrorists. It is simply too
risky to trust terrorists who have been charged with terrorist offenses
to return to court to be tried. We should not allow these criminals to
roam free in our streets while they await trial.
In addition, this bill would help prevent further terrorist attacks
by giving judges the discretion to impose a term of supervised relief
up to life for terrorists who have been convicted of terrorist
offenses. Currently, the law provides that only those who committed
terrorist offenses which either resulted in or created a foreseeable
risk of death could be supervised for a term of years up to life after
being released. This bill would make clear that post-trial supervision
is available for all victim terrorists, not just those whose terrorist
acts happen to result in death.
This amendment only authorizes a court to impose the supervised
relief of a terrorist. It does not mandate any particular term of
supervised relief for any particular criminal, nor does it mandate that
any supervised release be imposed at all. It leaves that decision up to
the courts based on the facts and circumstances of each individual
case.
In addition, current law already gives courts the authority to modify
or end the period of supervised release if the court determines that
the criminal's conduct and circumstances so warrant. This safeguard is
not changed by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes simple changes to current Federal
criminal law to ensure that those who have committed terrorist acts
will not attempt to harm our citizens again. I urge my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition for the minority, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds to the list of crimes for which the
presumption of detention occurs. It is an extraneous PATRIOT Act II
provision not sought by the 9/11 Commission. This puts the defendant in
a position where he has to prove the unprovable.
The Department of Justice has a bad record of detaining people who
should not be detained. Brendon Mayfield, a lawyer in Seattle, was
detained as a material witness in the Madrid train bombing. The
Department of Justice was subsequently forced to admit that they had
the wrong person, in that Mr. Mayfield had nothing to do with the
crime, notwithstanding the fact that he had been held on one of these
presumptions of detention.
I would hope we would consider this when we consider PATRIOT Act II.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the
gentleman from Virginia that this is freestanding legislation which I
have introduced. It has nothing to do with the so-called PATRIOT Act II
the gentleman refers to. It is a good measure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
This amendment would enhance public safety by denying pretrial release
to individuals accused of committing a terrorism offense. It would also
provide that any individual convicted of a terrorism offense could be
sentenced to supervised release for any term of years up to life.
Defendants in Federal cases who are accused of certain crimes are
presumptively denied pretrial release. For these crimes there is a
rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of that person as required for
the safety of the community.
The list of crimes currently includes drug offenses, carrying maximum
prison sentences of 10 years or more, but does not include most
terrorism offenses. Thus, persons accused of many drug offenses are
presumptively to be detained before trial, but no comparable
presumption exists for people accused of most terrorist crimes. This
makes no sense.
The continuing danger posed to national security by those who
materially support terrorism, who are the vital links in the chain of
any terrorist act, may be no less than that posed by the direct
perpetrators, the triggermen, of terrorist violence. And the court
should be afforded the same degree of discretion in prescribing post-
release supervision in all these cases as well.
The standard for every one of these amendments is whether or not this
language enhances the safety and security of this country. Clearly,
this amendment is a step in the right direction. It gives our courts
some of the same tools they have in drug cases. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss three subjects, the first
of which is this amendment. Although I listened carefully to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I think many of the points he
makes are valid, and I agree with him that we should not be coddling
terrorists, but I think this amendment is ill timed and needs further
consideration by this House.
The gentleman has said that he is not participating in an effort to
expand the PATRIOT Act, but these ideas have been circulated in a
package called PATRIOT Act II. My view of the PATRIOT Act, which I
supported, is that next year is the right time to consider how to
expand or contract it.
I am a cosponsor of the SAFE Act, which would delete some provisions
of the PATRIOT Act that are egregious, but I have an open mind in
looking at some features of the PATRIOT Act which might be fine-tuned
to work more effectively. So for that reason, I oppose this amendment.
I also will oppose the Hostettler amendment, which will be offered in
a few minutes. I think it replaces the worst features of H.R. 10 with
some other bad features. Certainly, the outsourcing of terrorists, as
some of us have called it, which some Members of the majority including
the gentleman

[[Page H8884]]

from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), agree would violate U.S. law and the
International Convention on Torture, is a terrible idea.
But there are other features of the Hostettler amendment that make
asylum much harder to get, and in ways that have nothing whatsoever to
do with finding and prosecuting terrorists, punish innocent immigrants.
That is not the purpose of the debate today.
Finally, I want to comment on the en bloc amendment which was just
offered and agreed to. I think it is a very good amendment, and the
features of it I want to talk about are the Barton amendment, and the
Fossella amendment, both of which have to do with interoperable
communications.
We have done almost nothing since
9/11 effectively to deal with the failure to have communications
equipment and adequate bandwidth with which to communicate, which was a
major problem in New York and a major problem at the Pentagon. This
administration is not even funding initiatives in this fiscal year for
interoperable communications, claiming there is enough money in the
pipeline.
The right answer is to free up some dedicated bandwidth for emergency
communications. There is a pending bill called the HERO Act, introduced
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me, which has been
sadly withering on the vine for a year and a half, opposed by the
broadcasters. These two amendments will help with multiyear funding,
which we need for ports as well as interoperable communications, and
will help convey the sense of the Congress that makes it clear we have
to free up this bandwidth so that our first responders have the tools
that they need.
So as we proceed this morning, Mr. Chairman, I hope we are all paying
close attention to amendments. Some are good, some are less good. I
would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte),
however, that I think he is an extremely careful legislator and a very
good lawyer, and I hope that next year we can work together to craft
PATRIOT Act amendments both to eliminate provisions that do not work
and to enhance provisions that do work that will keep America safe,
find the bad guys, and protect our civil liberties and our
constitution.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her comments, but I
would also point out that we are engaged in the midst of a war against
terror right now and a lot is going to happen in the next year,
including the apprehension of people who, under appropriate
circumstances meet this standard, and we should have the opportunity
for the court, and this is a decision by the judge, not something that
is a mandatory decision, but the judge should have the discretion to
allow that the individual be held pending trial without bond.
Secondly, there will be people who have been convicted of terrorist
acts potentially released during that period of time, and if the court
finds it appropriate to authorize lifetime supervision, we ought to get
that supervision started now to keep track of people who have engaged
in terrorist acts and give the court the authority to undertake that
now, without waiting an additional year and expose our country to
greater risks that will occur during that time.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro temore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House
Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
Page 252, line 18, strike ``DEPORTATION'' and insert
``REMOVAL'' (and amend the table of contents accordingly).
Page 258, after line 5, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 3034. INADMISSIBILITY DUE TO TERRORIST AND TERRORIST-
RELATED ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(i) In general.--Any alien who--

``(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
``(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the
Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after
entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
``(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to
cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist
activity;
``(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--

``(aa) a terrorist organization; or
``(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or
espouses terrorist activity;

``(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in
subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
``(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization;
``(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or
persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or
support a terrorist organization;
``(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or
on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training
was received, was a terrorist organization under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi); or
``(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing
the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5
years,

is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official,
representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be
engaged in a terrorist activity.''.
(b) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined.--Section
212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) Engage in terrorist activity defined.--As used in
this subparagraph, the term `engage in terrorist activity'
means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an
organization--

``(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances
indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily
injury, a terrorist activity;
``(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
``(III) to gather information on potential targets for
terrorist activity;
``(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--

``(aa) a terrorist activity;
``(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I)
or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not
reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist
organization;

``(V) to solicit any individual--

``(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this
clause;
``(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization; or

``(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, affords material support, including a safe
house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of
funds or other material financial benefit, false
documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical,
biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or
training--

``(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
``(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist
activity;
``(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause
(I) or (II) of clause (vi); or
``(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should
not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization.''.
(c) Terrorist Organization Defined.--Section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)) is amended to read as follows:
``(vi) Terrorist organization defined.--As used in this
section, the term `terrorist organization' means an
organization--

``(I) designated under section 219;

[[Page H8885]]

``(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the
Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation
with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization,
after finding that the organization engages in the activities
described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
``(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether
organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which
engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I)
through (VI) of clause (iv).''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to--
(1) removal proceedings instituted before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) acts and conditions constituting a ground for
inadmissibility occurring or existing before, on, or after
such date.

SEC. 3035. DEPORTABILITY OF TERRORISTS.

(a) In General.--Section 237(a)(4)(B) (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien who would be
considered inadmissible pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (F)
of section 212(a)(3) is deportable.''.
(b) Deportation of Aliens Who Have Received Military-Type
Training From Terrorist Organizations.--Section 237(a)(4) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Recipient of military-type training.--Any alien who
has received military-type training (as defined in section
2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or on
behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was
received, was a terrorist organization, as defined in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi), is deportable.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to acts and conditions constituting a ground
for removal occurring or existing before, on, or after such
date.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my time is limited, so I will focus on just two aspects
of this amendment that come largely from my own legislation, H.R. 4942.
First, this amendment recognizes that our enemy is not merely the
terrorist who pulls the trigger or places the bomb or drives that rig
truck, it is also those who through their material support make the
violent act possible. They provide the training, they provide the
shelter, the ID documents, the resources, the intelligence, the many
dirty acts that help the chain of destruction. If we can break these
links in the terrorist chain, then the chain will fall apart.
The second thing these provisions do is common sense. It makes
material support of terrorism, especially those who participate in
military-style training, grounds for being inadmissible into this
country and grounds for deportation.
We are a welcoming country. I am the proud son of immigrants. But we
cannot allow our welcoming arms to be a tool for terrorists who seek
our downfall.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek the time in
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, no one is opposed to identifying and denying admission
to terrorists, and no one is opposed to deporting terrorists who are
found in the United States. However, we should not exclude or deport
someone as a terrorist who is an innocent person. This amendment would
make that possibility more likely by expanding the already overly broad
provisions for excluding and deporting individuals on terrorism
grounds.
The terrorist removal provisions presently in the Immigration
Nationality Act specify that terrorist organizations must be designated
by the Secretary of the Department of State. This amendment would
eliminate that requirement. This would greatly increase the possibility
that people will be excluded or deported on the basis of involvement
with an organization that has incorrectly been called a terrorist
organization.

{time} 1045

Moreover, I would be surprised if someone removed on that basis would
ever be allowed to return to the United States.
Under current law, involvement with a terrorist organization is not a
ground for removal unless that person knew or should have known that it
was a terrorist organization. We have seen this occur time and time
again, particularly after passage of the PATRIOT Act and, as well, as
it is related to many in the Muslim community. I believe that more
consideration needs to be given to these very important issues.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, no one is opposed to denying admission
to terrorists, and no one is opposed to deporting terrorists who are
found in the United States. However, we should not exclude or deport
someone as a terrorist who is an innocent person. This amendment would
make that possibility more likely by expanding the already overbroad
provisions for excluding and deporting individuals on terrorism
grounds.
The terrorist removal provisions presently in the Immigration and
Nationality Act specify that terrorist organizations must be designated
by the Secretary of the Department of State. This amendment would
eliminate that requirement. This would greatly increase the possibility
that people will be excluded or deported on the basis of involvement
with an organization that has incorrectly been called a ``terrorist
organization.'' Moreover, I would be surprised if someone removed on
that basis would ever be allowed to return to the United States.
Under current law, involvement with a terrorist organization is not a
ground for removal unless the person knew or should have known that it
was a terrorist organization. The amendment would require the alien to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and
should not reasonably have known that it was a terrorist organization.
This would create a higher standard that would be much more difficult
to prove. In fact, I am not sure that it is possible to establish the
negative proposition that you did not know something.
Finally, the changes that this amendment would make would apply
retroactively, which would increase the likelihood of ensnaring
innocent people. I urge you to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has produced so many of
the important provisions of this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why anybody would oppose this amendment.
The amendment simply states that if you cannot be admitted to the
United States because you are affiliated with a terrorist organization,
then you can be deported if you get in through one way or another. We
have a big problem with illegal aliens crossing both the northern and
the southern border. If you do not go through the passport check and
enter the United States illegally and you could not enter the United
States legally because you were a part of a terrorist organization,
then if this amendment goes down, you cannot kick them out. So it seems
to me that if you cannot get in and it is illegal for you to get in and
you do get in, anyhow, illegally, or by fooling an immigration
inspector, then the government ought to have the power to be able to
deport these people.
The amendment is as simple as that, meaning if they do get in when
they should not, they should be able to be removed and sent out of the
country and make America safer.
I urge support of the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just say that the important part of this is that the amendment
would require the alien to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that he did not know and should not reasonably have known that it was a
terrorist organization. This is a higher standard and would be much
more difficult to prove. And might I say we are adding this to a bill
that frankly the White House has indicated that it strongly opposes any
overbroad expansion of expedited removal. This is clearly in that
ballpark.

[[Page H8886]]

The administration has concerns with the overbroad alien
identification standards proposed by the bill and unrelated to security
concerns. All of these amendments that we will be talking about, we
have a clear statement by the White House that they oppose. But also my
understanding is that the chairman of the full Committee on the
Judiciary has indicated that he would not stand for the expansion of
section 411 of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, the chairman said that it will
be done ``over my dead body.'' This is what we are doing here right
now. Even if we do so, we need to do so with far more detailed review
and judicial committee hearings and the understanding of the imbalance
between civil liberties and respect for the judicial system and the
right of someone to go into the courts and prove otherwise than what we
are doing here under H.R. 10 which is supposed to be, as the 9/11
Commission has said, the overhaul of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and commend my colleague from Wisconsin for his work on this
issue. Currently, terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of
the United States, but as soon as they set foot in the U.S. on tourist
visas, for example, we cannot deport them for many of the very same
offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those
alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. This amendment
makes aliens deportable for terrorist-related offenses to the same
extent that they would not be admitted in the first place to the United
States.
Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding
of how terrorist organizations operate. The Immigration and Nationality
Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material
support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation
if he can show that he did not know that the funds or support would
further the organization's terrorist activity. That is, his donation
did not immediately go to buying explosives. This notion is based on a
fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorist organizations operate.
As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for counterterrorism
at the State Department explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational
structure and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it
is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will
ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions,
regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support
nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.''
Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Dianne
Feinstein has rightly stated that, ``I simply do not accept that so-
called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from
their other operations.''
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think what is interesting to listen to today are the
arguments on the other side. Where they cannot win on the merits, they
choose to throw up a smoke screen of process, no matter how far off
point it may be. This amendment stands for a very simple proposition,
those who materially support terrorists, who make the terrorist act
possible by providing training, intelligence, logistics,
transportation, those who materially support terrorism should not be
here. They should not be allowed in this country; and if they are in
this country, they should be deported. We must have this tool. If we
are truly going to make this country safe, if we are truly going to
disrupt terrorism before the trigger is pulled or the bomb is set,
before lives are lost, we must have these tools.
Those who support terrorism intellectually through their training
support and harboring terrorists, those who operate and move in the
shadows of the terrorist operation, they do not belong here. They are
every bit as dangerous as the one who would pull the trigger. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a vitally important
tool in our overall effort in homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) is recognized to close for 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We do not want terrorists in this country and we certainly want to be
able to identify the terrorists as everyone might expect we would want
to do. This amendment is particularly overbroad, has an ability to wrap
up innocent individuals, and it goes against what the administration
has said. The administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion
of expedited removal authority.
Might I remind my colleagues of the unfortunate circumstances, though
they are someone different, of Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam, who came here
with all innocent purposes. In fact, his last years of work have been
in charitable work. Look what we tried to do with him. So many of our
constituents in the United States have Muslim names and are affiliated
with organizations who have good intentions but may be misconceived and
therefore they are wrapped up in this expedited removal.
This is something that needs to be done in a separate, bipartisan
manner, which is to have hearings, to get testimony, to understand the
depth of the need and how to craft something that works. Our own
chairman has indicated that we cannot by extension extend the PATRIOT
Act without considerable thought and I believe it is important when we
are defending our Nation to have considerable thought.
I would ask my colleagues to deny this amendment, to reject it, and I
ask us to focus on restoring the sense of integrity to our intelligence
system as the 9/11 Commission report argues for and the Maloney-Shays
bill argues for.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House
Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
Page 243, beginning on line 12, strike ``and the officer
determines that the alien has been physically present in the
United States for less than 1 year''.
Page 244, beginning on line 7, strike ``if the officer
determines that the alien has been physically present in the
United States for less than 1 year''.
Page 245, line 5, strike ``the central motive'' and insert
``a central reason''.
Page 254, strike line 6 and all that follows through line
24 on page 255 and insert the following:

SEC. 3032. DETENTION OF ALIENS BARRED FROM RESTRICTION ON
REMOVAL PENDING REMOVAL.

(a) In General.--Section 241 of Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1231) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Detention of Aliens Barred From Restriction on
Removal Pending Removal.--
``(1) In general.--In order to protect the United States
from those aliens who would threaten the national security or
endanger the lives and safety of the American people, the
Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary's
unreviewable discretion, determine that any alien who has
been ordered removed from the United States and who is

[[Page H8887]]

described in subsection (b)(3)(B) is a specially dangerous
alien and should be detained until removed. This
determination shall be reviewed every six months until the
alien is removed. In making this determination, the Secretary
shall consider the length of sentence and severity of the
offense, the loss and injury to the victim, and the future
risk the alien poses to the community.
``(2) Aliens granted protection restricting removal.--Any
alien described in paragraph (1) who has been ordered
removed, and who has been granted any other protection under
the immigration law, as defined in section 101(a)(17),
restricting the alien's removal, shall be detained. The
Secretary of State shall seek diplomatic assurances that such
alien shall be protected if removed from the United
States.''.
(b) Severability.--If any amendment, or part of any
amendment, made by subsection (a), or the application of any
amendment or part of any amendment to any person or
circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional--
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to
seek the removal of any alien described in section 241(j)(1)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this
Act, consistent with any protection described in section
241(j)(2) of such Act; and
(2) the Secretary of State shall continue to seek
diplomatic assurances that any alien described in section
241(j)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended
by this Act, would be protected upon removal.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the
debate on this amendment to 20 minutes, equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by
leadership, including Chairman Henry Hyde, and will protect the
American people from dangerous aliens while continuing our Nation's
proud history of providing refuge to the innocent oppressed. This
amendment will protect the American people in the same way as section
3032, which it replaces, would have. Section 3032 would have barred
aliens who posed a threat to the American public from seeking our
country's protection.
The courts have created a need to defend the American public against
such aliens. You see, the decisions of a few judges have turned what
was a clear congressional mandate authorizing the detention of
dangerous aliens who are facing removal into a confused and unworkable
mess. Congress has authorized the Attorney General to detain all aliens
who pose a risk to the community, including aliens granted protection
under the Convention Against Torture, until they can be removed from
the United States. The Supreme Court has read this provision, however,
to find that any alien who has been ordered deported but who cannot be
removed must be released, no matter how grave a danger the alien poses,
unless some ``special circumstance'' makes the alien especially
dangerous.
Congress' clear standard has eroded to the point that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Department of Homeland Security
authorities to release a dangerously insane alien who had accumulated
convictions for assault, harassment and rape. Why? Because the Supreme
Court had released a killer in the same circumstances, and the alien in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' case had not actually killed
anyone. Under such logic, DHS cannot protect the public against an
alien who has been granted torture convention protection and who
therefore cannot be removed from the United States unless the alien has
done something more serious than killing another person.
This amendment will address the goals of section 3032 by giving the
Secretary of Homeland Security the tools to keep dangerous aliens
granted protection under the torture convention out of our communities,
off of our streets, and away from our children. It will authorize the
Secretary, in his unreviewable discretion, to detain aliens granted
such protection who pose a risk to the American people. In addition,
this amendment will continue our Nation's tradition of providing aliens
the opportunity to request asylum and torture convention relief while
at the same time ensuring that our country's generosity is not abused.
It would also amend section 3007 to reinforce the current burdens
governing asylum, with one exception. Aliens who claim that they need
asylum because they have been accused in connection with terrorist,
militant or guerilla activity must show that race, religion, membership
in a particular social group, nationality or political opinion is a
central reason for any claimed persecution. This amendment will protect
innocent aliens who come to our shores fleeing thugs and dictators,
while undoing an inappropriate burden imposed on our government by,
once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Contrary to law and logic, the Ninth Circuit has required the
government to prove that aliens claiming persecution because they have
been tied to terrorism are not eligible for asylum, instead of
requiring the aliens seeking protection to show that they are. My
subcommittee has discovered that Hesham Hedayet, who killed two
innocent bystanders at LAX on July 4, 2002, had tried to exploit this
loophole.
I must underscore again, however, the most important effect of this
amendment which is to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the
discretion to detain aliens who would pose a risk to the American
people if released.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we are about to embark on the debate on three
amendments dealing with three provisions of this bill that are very
important and I think the House should try to understand the context,
so I would like to use this initial time just to sort of set the table.
The majority in putting forth this bill on the floor used
intelligence reform and the compelling and legitimate concern about
terrorism to insert three obnoxious, overbroad and overreaching
provisions that flagrantly violate our convention against torture,
which the United States has signed and ratified, and threaten to send
people who are likely to be tortured back to their countries that will
torture them; to engage in a process that allows a massive deportation
of people, having nothing to do with terrorism, who are in this country
for less than 5 years, through expedited removal, in a fashion that
will not allow them a hearing, this is section 3006, that will not
allow them a hearing, that will not allow them to contact their
families, that will require them to establish they are either here
legally or have been here for more than 5 years by the documents on
their person, and, if not, to be detained and immediately removed from
this country, in total and in flagrant violation of existing processes,
taking a legitimate idea of expedited removal at our points of entry
and in establishing it to the country in its entirety throughout its
interior and to anyone who is here less than 5 years.

{time} 1100

Then, finally, in section 307 to massively alter the procedures and
tests for getting asylum in such a way as to fundamentally depart from
this country's tradition as a haven for refugees and people fleeing
because of a well-founded fear of persecution, based on their politics,
their gender, their religion, their ethnicity. These are horrible
provisions. They have nothing to do with terrorism.
Now we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana after
the White House counsel wrote the toughest letter we have seen saying
the notion that America is going to send somebody back to a country
where they are likely to be tortured is unconscionable, we do not
support it, we do not ask for this provision. He offers an amendment,
which is a smokescreen, a total smokescreen, that tries to pretend that
we are getting out of this problem by making amendments to three
sections, notwithstanding the fact that if his amendment were to pass
and the Smith amendments that follow his amendment to strike sections
306 and 307 were to lose, every one of these problems would still
exist.

[[Page H8888]]

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me this time.
Because of the strange conflict in current law, terrorists and
criminals who are not citizens of our country but for some reason get
here are, in fact, being released into our society. There are three
amendments, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out.
I think it is better to debate them one at a time. That is why we do
that. We are going to vote on them one at a time.
This amendment is an important amendment because it deals with that
specific problem. I cannot believe anyone in this House would want
violent criminals from other countries who somehow get here to be able
to be released in our country. This amendment allows that those
criminals would be detained.
There is a great example of a Jordanian who was convicted in Jordan
of conspiracy to bomb a Jordanian school for American children. He is
convicted of a conspiracy where his goal, his target, was to kill
American children. He somehow got to this country.
Under the current interpretation of the courts, we cannot send him
back to Jordan because he might be tortured, but we also cannot detain
him. So in that interpretation this person is likely to be set free in
some community in the United States, a person who is conspiring to kill
American children in Jordan. So we would put him in a community of the
United States that is full of American children, nobody but American
children, to kill in that community? That cannot be allowed.
What the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Hostettler) amendment does is
address the concern that we all would have about sending anybody into a
place where they would be punished in a way that we would think was not
appropriate.
I have got to tell my colleagues the appropriateness to this body and
anywhere else and even as we would talk personally of a punishment for
some whose target was to kill American children, it is hard to imagine
how that punishment could be too difficult, but that is not what we are
about in this society. So this amendment would allow that person to be
detained.
If one catches a rattlesnake on one's farm, they do not look at it
and say, this is definitely a rattlesnake, let us go up and release it
in the front yard. What this amendment does is say, if they catch that
rattlesnake and they say we are going to be able detain this
rattlesnake, even though he did not commit his crime in the United
States. We are not going to let this criminal who was, in this case,
targeting American children, in other cases might be a murderer, in
other cases might be a rapist, in other cases might be a pedophile, we
are not going to let this person go and release him in our community
simply because we have no place to send him back to and he did not
commit the crimes that there was an agreement that he committed in the
United States.
This is a good amendment. It improves this bill. But the underlying
bill was designed to deal with the concern that we could not find an
adequate way to deal with until the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler) worked hard to come up with this amendment.
I urge support for this amendment. We are debating these and voting
on them one at a time. I urge that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to tell the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) of the Committee on the Judiciary that
this breaks our deadlock, but it simply does not go far enough; and I
am hoping that he will carefully consider the arguments being made by
his colleagues, particularly on the Committee on the Judiciary, to see
why it is that we think that even the Hostettler amendment can be
approved.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the Hostettler
Amendment allows for some of the broadest and most damaging immigration
changes we will have passed in several decades, and will decimate legal
protections in our laws of expedited removal, asylum, and extraordinary
rendition and torture.
Expedited removal (Section 3006)--The Hostettler Amendment would
amend the immigration laws to permit summary deportations for persons
who cannot prove that have physically been in the U.S. for more than 5
years. While the amendment deletes the provision that would have
applied this summary deportation provision to asylee applicants, it
still suffers from several glaring loopholes that would result in
deserving immigrants facing the legal nightmare of summary deportation.
Groups who would lose legal protections under the Hostettler Amendment
include:
Trafficking victims, and victims of rape, incest, kidnaping, and
domestic violence. Currently, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
allows these victims to remain in the U.S. so they are not subject to
further violence and abuse. Under the Hostettler amendment, trafficking
victims and other victims of rape, incest and kidnaping would be
subject to mandatory deportation.
Batterred women and children. The Violence Against Women Act provides
that battered immigrant women and children are permitted to remain
here, so they are not forced to face further battering and violence.
Under the Hostettler amendment, these immigrants could be plucked off
the street and subject to mandatory deportation.
Cubans who arrive in the U.S. by sea or by land. Currently, the
Attorney General has only discretionary power to exempt Cubans who
arrive in the U.S. via land or sea from expedited removal. Under the
Hostettler amendment, this discretionary power would again be obviated
by the mandatory requirement of expedited removal. This would mean that
Cubans who arrive at our shores would face automatic summary
deportation
Asylum (Section 3007)--Under the Hostettler amendment, the rights of
all asylum candidates would be impaired, decimating our historic
commitment to refugees and persecuted immigrants. Among other things,
the Hostettler Amendment would:
Require an asylum applicant to prove that a central reason for his or
her being persecuted was race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion; a far more difficult
evidentiary burden than current law.
Permit adjudicators to deny asylum because the applicant is unable to
provide specific corroborating specific, and deny judicial review of
such denials.
Introduce brand new credibility grounds for denying asylum, such as
``demeanor,'' any inconsistency in statements (even if attributable to
fear of retribution), and other subjective grounds that introduce new
cultural barriers to asylum, particularly for traumatized victims of
torture and violence.
Exclude country conditions from human rights organizations,
journalists, and other relevant, reliable and more recent information
than may be obtained from State Department reports.
Extraordinary Rendition/Torture (Section 3032)--The Hostettler
Amendment would also allow immigrants to be returned to countries where
they could be tortured in violation of the Convention Against Torture.
This is because the amended provision would allow our government to
send an individual to a country with a history of human rights
violations even if a U.S. immigration judge has determined he or she
would face torture, as long as the Secretary of State had merely asked
the country if they would agree not to torture the immigrant. In
essence, we would be substituting the judgment of a foreign diplomat
from Syria, China or the Sudan, for that of a judge in the U.S., with
the immigrant facing excruciating torture if the judge was right.
Another problem with the Hostettler Amendment is that it would create
unreviewable authority on the part of the DHS to detain non-citizens
who are found to be at risk of torture or persecution in their home
countries.
The Hostettler amendment is opposed by a wide range of human rights,
civil liberties and immigration groups, including the ACLU, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International, the
Center for Victims of Torture, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human
Rights Watch, the US Committee for Refugees, the National Council of La
Raza and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I urge No vote.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In response to the last speaker, he demonstrated why it is a
smokescreen. The issue of criminal aliens is a serious issue which we
should have to deal with; so they insert that into the Hostettler
amendment. But what they do is leave a gaping loophole whereby a
country that utilizes torture gives assurances to the United States and
therefore gets back the person whom they are going to torture.

[[Page H8889]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler amendment. The
Hostettler amendment amends the ill-considered and counterproductive
torture provisions in H.R. 10 in a way that still allows foreigners to
be subjected to torture.
How does it do this? The Hostettler amendment gives the Secretary of
Homeland Security the power to detain certain foreigners that, ``in the
Secretary's unreviewable discretion,'' the Secretary has determined to
be a specially dangerous alien that should be detained until removed.
Such persons would be held behind bars indefinitely with no recourse to
a court or another independent fact finder empowered to review the
basis for the Secretary's decision. Any foreign person that the
Secretary of Homeland Security decides is ``especially dangerous'' can
just be locked up forever with no trial or just deported.
And the Hostettler amendment stipulates that the ``Secretary of State
shall seek diplomatic assurances that such alien shall be protected if
removed from the United States.'' That means that the State Department
is supposed to seek diplomatic assurances from a country that it will
not torture somebody after a U.S. judge already has found that this
country likely would, in fact, torture that person. Are we really going
to trust the assurances of the countries that our own State Department
says torture detainees?
Mr. Chairman, we should really call this the ``In Syria we trust''
amendment or perhaps the ``In Sudan we trust'' amendment. The
assurances that these countries have provided that they would not
torture have proved completely unreliable in practice.
In 2002, Maher Arar, a Syrian-born citizen, was intercepted at New
York's JFK Airport and deported to Syria, where he was detained and
reportedly tortured. The Washington Post has reported that while Syria
provided ``diplomatic assurances'' that Arar would not be mistreated,
these assurances proved worthless. Maher Arar was tortured anyway.
America should not be outsourcing torture to countries like Syria and
the Sudan. America should be relying not on diplomatic assurances from
countries that we already know practice torture, particularly when a
U.S. judge has already found that it is more likely than not that the
deported person would be tortured if they were sent there.
We as America cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. If we want
to protect our own Marines and soldiers from torture, we must have the
same standard for protecting prisoners that we have under our control
from torture. We cannot build a new generation of nuclear bunker
busters and then tell the Muslim nations they should not want nuclear
weapons, and we cannot tell the Muslim world not to torture American
prisoners at the same time we are sending Muslim detainees to countries
that we know are going to torture those prisoners.
We cannot exist in a world where the United States is not the moral
leader. This amendment must be defeated.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), distinguished chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler
amendment, which I believe deals with the issue of compliance with the
torture amendment in a humane manner that will safeguard the safety of
the American people.
Let me say why this is necessary. Under current law, as interpreted
by the courts, a criminal who has committed a crime or conspired to
commit a crime in another country, or someone who is on a terrorist
watch list can come to the United States. When they get here, they
claim asylum. It takes a while to adjudicate asylum applications.
They also can say if he is immediately deported, then he would be
tortured if he went back home. So the way it stands now under the
current law, that person would be out in society free to commit crimes,
free to commit terrorist acts until the time comes for the asylum
hearing. And then if the person were found not to be eligible for
asylum, they still could not be deported if they thought that they
would be tortured when they come back home.
So if we cannot send them home under the torture convention, and that
is the case in many Middle Eastern countries, and we cannot detain
them, then they are out on the street posing a danger to society.
What the Hostettler amendment does in this circumstance is say that
they can be detained. And there are procedural safeguards in the
Hostettler amendment that set up standards for detention and require a
review every 6 months. If my colleagues vote against this amendment,
they are going to have these people out on the street.
They should not be out on the street. They should be detained or
deported. If we cannot deport them, then let us give the Department of
Homeland Security the authority to detain them. Pass the amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims Subcommittee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and for his leadership. I thank the chairman of
the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their
comments.
I agree with the chairman of the full committee. Keep them, detain
them here. The problem with this amendment is that it is subjected to
persons who are not terrorists. It is subjected to persons who can
cause harm but are not terrorists. This is the problem.
The White House has already said that the President of the United
States opposes provisions dealing with sending people to places where
torture occurs. The President made it clear that the United States
stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States
remains committed to comply with its obligations under the convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana amendment does
not solve the problem. It requires, or asks, the Secretary of State to
simply ask a country not to torture the individual. Do my colleagues
believe that Sudan would comply with that? That is not the case. This
amendment is subjected to mistake.
Let me just read Cat Stevens: ``I am a victim.'' Although the
circumstances are different, he was yanked off a Washington-bound plane
and sent home. The singer, formerly known as Cat Stevens, says he
became the victim of an ``unjust and arbitrary system.'' This is what
we are passing now.
``I was devastated,'' he wrote. ``The unbelievable thing is that only
2 months earlier, I had been having meetings in Washington with top
officials from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives to talk about my charity work.''
The real key in this amendment is that we should deal with this
question in another separate opportunity to really address this in a
fair manner. This amendment will be a wide, wide, wide net, and what
will happen with this net? Innocent persons will be forced to places
where they will be tortured.
The President is standing up against it. We stand up against it. I
will simply argue that this is not the appropriate vehicle to use. This
goes against the convention against torture, and I ask my colleagues to
consider a high moral ground in this and to vote against the amendment.
We must also support the two Smith of New Jersey amendments to
eliminate the very bad H.R. 10 provisions subjecting deported persons
to possible torture against the convention against torture.
This amendment would make minor changes to the expedited removal
provisions in section 3006, but we need more than minor changes. We
need to eliminate expedited removal proceedings entirely. Expedited
removal proceedings are conducted by immigration officers who are not
even attorneys. There is no hearing before an immigration judge, no
right to counsel, and no appeal. Nevertheless, despite this complete
absence of due process, someone removed from the United States in
expedited removal proceedings is barred for 5 years from returning.
The amendment also would modify section 3032 to specify that people
who have received

[[Page H8890]]

CAT relief or withholding of removal may be detained indefinitely if
they are dangerous. The authority to detain dangerous aliens
indefinitely already exists.
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the United States Supreme
Court held that the detention provisions in the Immigration and
Nationality Act, read in light of the Constitution's demands, limit an
alien's post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary
to bring about that alien's removal from the United States. The Supreme
Court found further that once removal is no longer reasonably
foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute--
except where special circumstances justify continued detention, such as
when it is necessary to protect the public.
In response to that Supreme Court decision, the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service promulgated regulations for determining the
circumstances under which an alien may be held in custody beyond the
statutory removal period. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 241.4. These regulations
authorize the Government to continue to detain aliens who present
foreign policy concerns or national security and terrorism concerns, as
well as individuals who are especially dangerous due to a mental
condition or personality disorder, even though their removal is not
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
If we are going to establish a statutory criterion for deciding when
indefinite detention is warranted, we need to have a hearing first. An
unwise or inadequate criterion will result in people being detained
indefinitely who should be released from custody. We need to proceed
with caution on this matter.
I urge you to vote against this amendment.

{time} 1115

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). There is 1 minute remaining on
each side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), as a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary and in opposition, has the right to
close.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at this time state that
the administration, as a result of the amendment to section 3032, has
said that they favor the change in my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is
important that we realize that this amendment, while not perfect, it is
extremely important that it pass. I am very supportive of the Smith
amendments that will be debated shortly. But what this amendment does
is it keeps us, the United States of America, in compliance with the
convention against torture, allowing us, obviously, not to, in order to
be in compliance with the convention against torture, not to deport
people to places where they will be tortured. But it also gives
discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain, to keep
under detention, terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and a
limited list of other serious criminals.
To comply with the convention against torture, it is important that
we pass this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his hard
work.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I am going to vote against the Hostettler amendment because, number
one, it is a smokescreen by pretending to fix 3006 and 3007, the
amendments that will follow this amendment when we come back to the
Committee of the Whole; and, secondly, because it has a glaring
loophole involving assurances from the torturing country that they will
not torture. That means it is still in violation of the Convention
Against Torture. Members will decide how they are going to vote on that
particular amendment.
The point I want to make most of all is do not fall for the trap
which is being set by this amendment that the Smith amendments to 3006
and 3037, that have nothing to do with terrorism and that allow for
mass deportations with no due process and which fundamentally change
our asylum laws, do not fall for the trap that by pasting the
Hostettler amendment you have cured the defects in those provisions. Be
sure to vote for the Smith amendments and against those provisions when
they come up.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 4
offered by Mr. Kirk of Illinois, Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr.
Sessions of Texas, Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Carter of Texas,
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, Amendment No. 12
offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kirk

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414,
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 512]

AYES--414

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley

[[Page H8891]]

Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Boehlert
Clay
Conyers
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members
are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1142

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was
unavoidable detained at a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Sessions

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385,
noes 30, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 513]

AYES--385

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--30

Blumenauer
Carson (IN)
Farr
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kildee
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
Mollohan
Oberstar
Olver
Payne
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Scott (VA)
Solis
Stark
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--17

Boehlert
Cox
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Ruppersberger
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1152

Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 513, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Carter

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Carter) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H8892]]

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 514]

AYES--344

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--72

Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Ehlers
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--16

Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Obey
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1202

Mr. RUSH, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California, Mr. WAXMAN and Mr. SHERMAN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 514, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye''.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 515]

AYES--333

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick

[[Page H8893]]

Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--84

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--15

Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1212

Mr. RUSH, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 515, I was in my
congressional district on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye''.

Amendment 12 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 516]

AYES--283

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--132

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--17

Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Johnson, E. B.
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Sullivan
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members
are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1220

Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H8894]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 516, I was in my
congressional district on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no''.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Aderholt, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10)
to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism
prevention and prosecution, border security, and international
cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________

Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (House)
Page H8894-H8978

9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

{time} 1222

In the Committee of the Whole

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Strike section 3006 (page 242, line 18 through page 244,
line 9) and redesignate provisions and conform the table of
contents accordingly.

[[Page H8895]]

friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, says this is a matter of security. The Bush
administration and George Bush say this is a massively overbroad
expedited removal expansion. The President of the United States in
January of this year gave a speech where he said the vast majority of
these people ``bring to America the values of faith in God, love of
family, hard work and self-reliance.''
If this amendment does not pass, this bill, because a group of people
in the majority party in a caucus led by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) wants to glom their anti-immigration ideas onto a
terrorism and intelligence reform bill, that these people will be
deported, up to a million, without due process, without an
administrative hearing, without a balancing process that deals with
earned adjustment or with guest workers or with anything else. It is
the forcing of an anti-immigration agenda onto an intelligence and
homeland security reform bill.
We are talking here about victims of trafficking, Cubans fleeing
Castro, battered women eligible for VAWA protection. We are talking
about people who are classic refugees who will be picked up in this
process; they will never have a chance to assert their asylum claims,
people who will be subject to torture. You can say you adhere to every
convention in the world on refugees and on torture, but if you
summarily allow low-level enforcement officers in the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agency or in the Border Patrol to pick people up,
take them out of the country, not let them tell their families they are
being deported, insisting that they prove their credentials by the
documents they have on their body at that time, that means either legal
citizenship or legal residents or being here more than 5 years, you are
subject to deportation, immediately, summarily, without any chance for
judicial review and administrative hearing, any process whatsoever.
Please support the Smith amendment. It is very important.

{time} 1230

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really
unfortunate that this provision is in the base bill. It lumps the base
bill, as written, all immigrants who may be accused of being
undocumented who have been here for 5 years or less, with terrorists.
The current law says, if they are a terrorist, there is no limitation
on time. They are picked up, and if they are not arrested, they are
thrown out without a hearing. It also says, if they are an undocumented
immigrant, within 2 years they can be picked up and sent out without a
hearing. That is current.
This expands it to 5 years even though the 2 years of current law is
not being used.
There is a border initiative that has been announced. Many other
initiatives can be announced under current law. But, no, we want to
expand it to 5 years and say that folks who are working in restaurants
or folks that are cutting the grass or folks that are doing something
that is very honorable and has nothing to do with terrorism are now
going to be lumped together to say, even if they have a claim to stay
in this country, they do not even have a hearing. They cannot even have
a hearing and they are going to be thrown out.
And, by the way, it is not even ``may.'' It is ``shall.'' That is
what we are talking about. And it is most unfortunate that in the
context of a terrorism bill we have this language.
Vote for the Smith amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Has the time
of the gentleman from New Jersey expired?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from New
Jersey's (Mr. Smith) time has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), chairman of the
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full
committee for yielding me this time.
I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in
opposing this amendment, which would take a vital tool out of the hands
of our Border Patrol in keeping foreign terrorists out of the United
States.
As it is distressingly easy for aliens to illegally cross our
borders, it would also be relatively easy for terrorists to enter. The
Border Patrol recently released data that in just the period from last
October through this June, over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were caught
trying to cross the northern or southern borders, including eight from
Afghanistan, six from Algeria, 13 from Egypt, 20 from Indonesia, 10
from Iran, 55 from Israel, 122 from Pakistan, six from Saudi Arabia,
six from Syria, 22 from Turkey, and two from Yemen. A South African
woman alleged to be a terrorist on the terrorist watch list recently
indicated that she had crossed the border illegally from Mexico.
What happens to these aliens when they are intercepted? They go
through a ``revolving door'' when we release them because of a lack of
detention space. Then we hold out some desperate hope that they will
appear for their immigration court hearings months afterward. However,
the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that
the INS was not able to remove 87 percent of aliens with final orders
of removal who were not detained. And, worse yet, 94 percent of
nondetained aliens from state sponsors of terrorism who had final
removal orders could not be located for their deportation. In an age of
terrorism, this is just unacceptable.
There is no good reason not to subject illegal aliens who have
crossed the border illegally to immediate deportation. These aliens, if
they have been in the U.S. less than 10 years, have no right to seek
cancellation of removal unless they are making a claim of asylum. Once
again, unless they are making a claim of asylum and can show a credible
fear of persecution, there is no reason not to subject them to
expedited removal.
And, in fact, the amendment that just recently passed in the House,
previously, removes the 1-year limitation in the base bill for
convention against torture and asylum relief. So those who seek relief
from convention against torture and for asylum will not be harmed by
the bill.
So the amendment must be rejected so that we can allow for the
expedited removal of individuals who would do us harm. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of Mr.
Smith's amendment. This amendment would eliminate section 3006, which
contains the expedited removal provisions of H.R. 10. Expedited removal
proceedings are conducted by immigration officers who are not even
attorneys. There is no hearing before an immigration judge, no right to
counsel, and no appeal. Nevertheless, despite this complete absence of
due process, someone removed from the United States in expedited
removal proceedings is barred for 5 years from returning.
In fact, section 3006 would make expedited removal proceedings even
harsher than they already are. When aliens are placed in expedited
removal proceedings now, they have been in the United States for less
than a year and can apply for asylum if they are able to establish a
credible fear of persecution. Section 3006 would place undocumented
aliens in expedited removal proceedings who have been in the United
States for up to 5 years, and it would deprive them of the right to
apply for asylum if they have been here for more than a year and have
not filed an asylum application yet, even if they can establish a
credible fear of persecution.
It is true that aliens in full due process removal proceedings before
an Immigration Judge also are barred from applying for asylum if they
have been in the United States for a year and have not already filed an
asylum application, but it is not an absolute bar. The alien may still
apply for asylum if he can demonstrate the existence of changed
circumstances which materially affect his eligibility for asylum, or he
can show extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
the application within the one-year period. If people who have been in
the United States for more than a year are going to be subjected to

[[Page H8896]]

expedited removal proceedings, the same exceptions should be available
to them for filing an asylum application after the 1-year period.
The fact that section 3006 would apply the 1-year time limit without
the exception that was enacted with it is a clear indication of the
intention of that section, which is to move people out of the country
as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences. It is a
certainty that this will result in sending people to countries where
they will be persecuted.
I urge you to vote for this amendment to remove section 3006 from
H.R. 10.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House
report 108-751.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Smith of new jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Strike section 3007 (page 244, line 10 through page 247,
line 18) and redesignate provisions and conform the table of
contents accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, section 3007 would make sweeping changes, again, to our
asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend would stop terrorists
from being granted asylum. I think Members should remember that under
the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorists are ineligible for
asylum. Worse than being unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, this section would
erect a number of brand-new barriers to winning asylum claims that are
likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of
asylum in the United States, and they will result in bona fide refugees
being returned to their persecutors. This stacks the deck against
refugees.
Let me just point out to my colleagues that in section 3007, asylum
officers and immigration judges would be encouraged to deny an asylum
claim simply because the applicant was unable to recall or recount
information later in the process that she did not mention when she
initially encountered an immigration officer. Asylum applicants,
particularly survivors of torture, rape, forced abortion or
sterilization may not be comfortable telling this information to a
uniformed male inspection officer at an airport. Asylum applicants in
that setting may not be provided with appropriate interpreters and may
be understandably fearful of discussing their problems about their home
countries in detail. They are frightened people, especially trafficking
victims.
In section 3007 there is also, amazingly, a demeanor standard which
flies in the face of our American standards. If somebody looks down
during the asylum interview and does not somehow convey honesty, when
one has been tortured, when they have been a victim of trafficking,
when they have been hurt emotionally, psychologically, and physically,
they could be denied asylum. Sometimes, talking to somebody who is a
uniformed member of our service, they may be intimidated.
Also, and this is the central problem with this language, Mr.
Chairman, it changes what is in the Refugee convention. There are five
reasons why people can get asylum: race, nationality, religion, the
Members know what they are. This changes it so that the applicant must
prove it is the central reason. Asking asylum seekers to read the minds
of their persecutors is absurd on its face. This will mean many people
who are true asylum seekers, that should get it, will not get it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to quote from the 9/11 Commission staff report
entitled 9/11 and Terrorist Travel. The staff found that a number of
terrorists have abused the asylum system and that once terrorists have
entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to
remain here. The primary method was immigration fraud, concocting bogus
political asylum stories when they arrive.
This amendment strikes a good-faith effort to try to prevent these
people from gaming the system.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which deals with the border States
of Arizona and California, has made it difficult for immigration judges
to deny fraudulent asylum application by terrorists and simply by scam
artists. In their recent decisions, the 9th Circuit has failed to give
deference to the adverse credibility determination of immigration
judges in asylum cases, and as a result, many fraudulent applications
have been approved.
The role of an appeals court is not to make a judgment on the
credibility of the witnesses. That is done by the trial court. And here
the immigration judges have determined that some of these applicants
have no credibility, and yet the 9th Circuit says their determination
really does not mean anything.
Even worse, the 9th Circuit has created a disturbing precedent that
has made it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum. The
Circuit has held that punishment inflicted on account of perceived
membership in a terrorist group may constitute persecution on account
of the political opinion of that terrorist group. Aliens who have been
arrested in the United States on suspicion of being members of
terrorist organizations have received asylum because of alleged fear of
persecution if returned because of an affiliation with these groups.
Talk about circular reasoning.
A member of the Board of Immigration Appeals complains that if a
terrorist organization arose in this country aimed at the violent
overthrow of the Federal Government through a program of murder of
government and law enforcement officials and federal judges, it would
appear that government suppression of this organization would be an act
of persecution in the 9th Circuit. Being a guerilla is not a form of
political opinion. Being a guerrilla means being engaged in acts of
violence and illegality.
All the bill does is overturn the precedent of the 9th Circuit and
provide a list of factors that an immigration judge can consider in
assessing the credibility of the applicant, such as the demeanor,
candor, and consistency of the witness.
What the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing to do is to say that
if the witness has bad demeanor, no candor, and no consistency, they
have got to grant the petition for asylum. And that is wrong and the
amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with all due
respect to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, whom I have
great respect for, that is not what the effect of the Smith amendment
would be.
There is a long tradition, based on international and domestic law
and jurisprudence, that establishes the right to seek political asylum
when there is a well-founded fear of persecution. In addition, our laws
are clear that membership in any terrorist organization or activity in
a terrorist organization automatically bars them even if they have a
well-founded fear of persecution.
So what this legislation, the base bill, does is go much farther than
what the opponents of the Smith amendment have portrayed up to now. And
the reality of the matter is that when the law is as clear with regard
to terrorism, and certainly as it has been in recent years, it is
unfortunate to diminish the rights of people who are legitimately
fearing for their lives and seeking political asylum.

[[Page H8897]]

That is why the Smith amendment is so necessary. So I would ask my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I only have 30 seconds here, and this
is all I ask of all the Members: Let us not confuse trafficking with
terrorism. I understand how they can be concerned about that and why
they are trying to do their best. Nobody gainsays them that. But in the
process, we are destroying the opportunity or standing the chance of
destroying the opportunity to make the necessary differentiations,
especially where trafficking is concerned.
There are over 50,000, by the State Department's estimation, people
who are essentially made slaves today in the United States, who are
trafficked, and they could display exactly the same sense of demeanor
and the other characteristics that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) has been discussing, and the other persons who are opposed to
it.
Please give the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) an opportunity
with this amendment so we can make certain that we do not make that
confusion.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, because I have so many
requests for time and will not get to all of them, I ask unanimous
consent to extend this debate by 5 minutes equally divided between the
proponent and opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is the vice chairman of the
Helsinki Commission, on which I serve as well.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the adoption of this amendment is
very much consistent with the 9/11 Commission's report. They talk about
the United States winning the battle of ideas. The United States has
stood against persecution of individuals because of race, nationality,
or religion. If we do not adopt this amendment, the underlying bill
will make it much more difficult for people who are legitimately being
persecuted to be able to claim asylum in the United States.

{time} 1245

That is not what this Nation is about. Our Nation is about helping
people and individuals who are being persecuted. This amendment is very
important. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from California
is recognized for 45 seconds.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is already law that terrorists cannot
assert asylum. That is the law. A balanced and sensible proposal to fix
our broken immigration system involves better border security, it
involves the U.S. Visit Program, it involves sensible reforms in the
procedures, it involves combining watch lists. It does not require the
gaming of the asylum hearing process in a way that would cause us to
depart from the fundamental precepts this country has always had, that
we are a refuge for true refugees fleeing persecution in other
countries.
The ``fixes'' in this process, in this bill, that the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) seeks to strike, games the system against people
who are true refugees. Please pass the Smith amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it allows liars to get
asylum, because under the Smith amendment, somebody that an immigration
judge determines is lying through his teeth and has no candor cannot
take into consideration in determining the decision the fact that the
judge has determined that the applicant has lied.
That is wrong. An ``aye'' vote protects liars. A ``no'' vote allows
the judge to make a determination on candor.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) in opposing this amendment. We must remember
that terrorists continually try to abuse our asylum system. For
example, in 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees at CIA
headquarters and Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first World Trade Center
attack after they were free after applying for asylum. Just weeks ago,
Shahawar Matin Siraj was arrested in New York City for plotting to bomb
a subway station. Siraj was freed after applying for asylum.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated, the
Ninth Circuit has adopted a body of circuit law that is essentially
preventing immigration judges from finding that asylum applicants are
lying by severely limiting the factors, such as their inconsistencies
and demeanor, that the immigration judge can consider in finding aliens
untruthful.
Given that government attorneys are not allowed to ask the foreign
government about the facts regarding the asylum claimants, about the
only evidence available to the government on which to deny an asylum
application is the perceived truthfulness of the applicant's testimony.
If a criminal jury can sentence a United States citizen who is a
criminal defendant to life imprisonment or execution based on their not
believing the American citizen's defendant's story, certainly an
immigration judge can deny an alien asylum on the same basis.
The bill would overturn this ridiculous precedent used by the Ninth
Circuit. The bill provides a list of factors that an immigration judge
can consider in determining truthfulness.
Oppose the Smith amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of Mr.
Smith's amendment. Mr. Smith's amendment would eliminate section 3007.
Section 3007 would create a special eligibility standard for asylum
applicants who claim persecution on account of an accusation of
involvement with a guerilla, militant, or terrorist organization; or on
account of an accusation of engaging in or supporting guerilla,
militant, or terrorist activities. They must establish that race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion was or will be the central motive for their
persecution.
Frankly, this puzzles me. The burden of proof in the Immigration and
Nationality Act now provides that the person must establish that he has
been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion. It seems to me that if the persecution is on
account of one of those enumerated grounds, it necessarily would be the
central motive for the persecution.
Section 3007 also would require Immigration Judges to deny applicants
asylum because they fail to provide corroborating evidence if it is
reasonable to expect corroborating evidence. This is not necessary
either. My immigration counsel, Nolan Rappaport, wrote decisions for
the Board of Immigration Appeals before he left the Justice Department.
In 1989, he wrote Matter of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989), in which
the Board held that corroborating evidence should be presented in
asylum cases if it is available. That was 15 years ago, and it is still
the rule that immigration judges follow in asylum proceedings. The
thing that is new is the provision in section 3007 which states that,
``No court shall reverse a determination made by an adjudicator with
respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . . . unless the
court finds that a reasonable adjudicator is compelled to conclude that
such corroborating evidence is unavailable.'' That is punitive and
unnecessary. Immigration Judges do not need statutory guidance in
making credibility determinations, and Federal circuit court judges
should not be so severely restricted in their review of credibility
determinations.

[[Page H8898]]

I urge you to vote for Mr. Smith's amendment to eliminate section
3007.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what is the procedure by which one can
point out that none of the gentlemen from Indiana received asylum?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 17 printed in House Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Ose

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Ose:
At the end of title III of the bill, insert the following:

Subtitle F--Security Barriers

SEC. 3121. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF SECURITY BARRIERS.

(a) In General.--In order to construct the physical
barriers and roads described in section 102 of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208,
div. C), the tracts of land described in subsection (b) shall
be exempt from the requirements of the provisions listed in
subsection (c).
(b) Legal Description.--The tracts of land referred to in
subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) Zone west.--A tract of land situated within Section 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Township 19 South, Range 2 West
of the San Bernadino Meridian, within the County of San
Diego, State of California, more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Fractional
Section 7, T19S, R2W; said Point-of-Beginning being on the
United States/Mexico International Boundary Line and also
being a point of mean sea level of the Pacific Ocean (at
Borderfield State Park); thence, N 02 deg.31'00'' W, a
distance of approximately 800.00 feet to a point. Thence, N
84 deg.44'08'' E, a distance of approximately 1,845.12 feet
to a point. Said point being on the Section line common to
Section 7 and 8, T19S, R2W. Thence, S 01 deg.05'10'' W, along
said Section line, a distance of approximately 270.62 feet to
a point. Thence, S 89 deg.49'43'' E, a distance of
approximately 1,356.50 feet to a point. Thence, N
45 deg.34'58'' E, a distance of approximately 1,901.75 feet
to a point. Said point being on the Section line common to
Sections 5 and 8, T19S, R2W. Thence, N 00 deg.00'00'' E, a
distance of approximately 300.00 feet to a point. Thence, S
89 deg.54'53'' E, a distance of approximately 1,322.05 feet
to a point. Thence, S 00 deg.25'27'' W, a distance of
approximately 300.00 feet to a point. Said point being on the
Section line common to Sections 5 and 8, T19S, R2W. Thence, S
89 deg.37'09'' E, along the Section line common to Section 4,
5, 8, and 9, T19S, R2W, a distance of approximately 5,361.32
feet to a point. Thence, N 00 deg.12'59'' E, a distance of
approximately 400.00 feet to a point. Thence, N
90 deg.00'00'' E, a distance of approximately 1,349.81 feet
to a point. Said point being on the Section line common to
Sections 3 and 4, T19S, R2W. Thence, S 00 deg.30'02'' W, a
distance of approximately 410.37 feet to a point. Said point
being the Section corner common to Sections 3, 4, 9, and 10,
T19S, R2W. Thence, S 89 deg.36'11'' E, along the Section line
common to Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11, T19S, R2W, a distance of
approximately 6,129.36 feet to a point. Thence, along the arc
of a curve to the left, having a radius of 518.88 feet, and a
distance of 204.96 feet to a point. Thence, S 89 deg.59'41''
E, a distance of approximately 258.66 feet to a point.
Thence, S 00 deg.00'00'' E, a distance of approximately
111.74 feet to a point. Said point being within the NW \1/4\
of fractional section 11, T19S, R2W, on the United States/
Mexico International Boundary. Thence, S 84 deg.41'20'' W,
along said United States/Mexico International Boundary, a
distance of approximately 19,210.48 feet to the Point-of-
Beginning. Said tract of land containing an area of 396.61
acre, more or less.
(2) Zone east.--A tract of land situated within Section 32
and 33, Township 18 South, Range 1 East of the San Bernadino
Meridian, County of San Diego, State of California, and being
described as follows: Beginning at the \1/4\ Section line of
Section 32, T18S, R1E. Said Point-of-Beginning being on the
United States/Mexico International Boundary Line and having a
coordinate value of X = 6360877.25 Y = 1781730.88. Thence, N
00 deg.32'02'' W, a distance of approximately 163.56 feet to
a point. Thence, N 78 deg.33'17'' E, a distance of
approximately 1,388.23 feet to a point. Thence, N
84 deg.37'31'' E, a distance of approximately 1,340.20 feet
to a point. Thence, N 75 deg.00'00'' E, a distance of
approximately 1,000.00 feet to a point. Thence, S
88 deg.06'07'' E, a distance of approximately 1,806.81 feet
to a point. Thence, N 80 deg.00'00'' E, a distance of
approximately 1,050.00 feet to a point. Thence, N
87 deg.00'00'' E, a distance of approximately 1,100.00 feet
to a point. Thence, S 00 deg.00'00'' W, a distance of
approximately 300.00 feet to a point. Said point being on the
United States/Mexico International boundary. Thence, S
84 deg.44'09'' W, along said boundary, a distance of
approximately 7,629.63 to the Point-of-Beginning. Said tract
of land having an area of approximately 56.60 acres more or
less.
(c) Exemption From Certain Requirements.--The provisions
referred to in subsection (a) areas as follows:
(1) Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), as
amended by Quiet Communities of 1978 (P.L. 95-609).
(2) Clean Air Act and amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401-
7671q).
(3) Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1342).
(4) Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), as
amended by Executive Order 12608.
(5) Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), as
amended by Executive Order 12608.
(6) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1456(c)).
(7) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42
U.S.C. 6901-6992k) as amended by Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-616; 98 Stat. 3221).
(8) Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation,
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), as amended by
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know-Act of 1986
(42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.).
(9) Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201
et seq.).
(10) Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1544).
(11) Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
(12) Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940, as amended (16
U.S.C. 688-688d).
(13) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
470 et seq.), as amended Executive Order 13007--Sacred Sites
Presidential Memorandum regarding government to Government
Relations (April 29, 1994).
(14) Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(43 CFR Part 10).
(15) Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16
U.S.C. 470aa-470ii).
(16) Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations) of 1994.

Modification to Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Ose

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be
modified in the form at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Ose:
On page 5, line 4, strike ``areas as'' and insert ``are
as''.
Add at the end of subsection (c) the following new
paragraph:
``(17) Any other laws or requirements that delay
construction of the barriers and roads described in this
section.''.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, on the definition of ``any other laws or
requirements,'' does that broaden it to every law in America?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is not a proper parliamentary inquiry.
That is a matter for debate on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized under his
reservation.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. OSE. Perhaps I can elucidate. The point of adding that particular
provision is that, given the crush of time, I am a little bit concerned
that we did not cover everything. There is no purpose here to include
Davis-Bacon or employment or employee things. This is strictly an
effort to remove impediments to the construction of this security
fence.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it will not go to
legislative intent. It will go to what you have stated in words here,
and it says ``any other laws or requirements.'' Any.
Mr. OSE. If the gentleman will yield further, as they relate to the
fence, that is my intention.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that delay the
construction

[[Page H8899]]

of barriers, there could be all kinds of other reasons that are
unrelated to just your waiving the environmental requirements.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me
state, I know the intent of our colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose), is to ensure that there may not be other
environmental regulations which in any way impinge on the construction
of this fence. I think one of the things that could take place is at
least there would be clear legislative intent established through this
debate process indicating that it would not move into other areas about
which my friend has mentioned as areas of concern for him.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the intent here
is to waive a lot of laws so you can get this done in an expeditious
manner. I think you are opening up a Pandora's Box. It is going to give
you so many lawsuits that you are never going to get the project done.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr) object to the modification?
Mr. FARR. I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to secure our southern
border immediately south of San Diego by completing the security fence
that this Congress authorized and that President Clinton signed back in
September of 1996. The rationale for this is very straightforward.
Construction of this fence reduces illegal immigration. The Border
Patrol has told us that the construction of the fence to date has
reduced illegal immigration in that area by 80 percent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) just 5 minutes ago talked
about an integrated border security system that accomplishes just that,
and this fence is part of that. Construction of the fence serves to
protect our country from potential terrorist activity.
I have a letter from the Secretary of the Navy here to our good
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), that I will enter
into the Record that highlights exactly that point relative to the
naval base 4 miles north of the site in question.
Construction of this fence is part of an integrated border security
system identified in the 9/11 Commission report as a priority. I am not
making this stuff up. This is part of an integrated border security
system that this country has previously authorized that has been bogged
down for 8 years in getting completed.
I regret, I truly do regret, the impact this may have on
environmental or cultural resources, but we need to make a choice. The
votes we post will be clear: Are we for protecting this country by
completing this fence, or are we not?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, there is no problem that is broken that needs to be
fixed. There is nobody opposed to the process of getting this fence
built. The problem with this amendment is you create a whole ability to
have more lawsuits filed and you give a message that the environmental
laws are not necessary.
The process is working. In 2 weeks, the Homeland Security Office is
meeting with the California Coastal Commission where they have laid out
all of the road map for how to get it done. The fact of the letter that
was just submitted for the Record, the Navy never asked that any of
these environmental laws be waived. We built a fence around the Naval
Postgraduate School in Monterey by abiding by all the laws, including
the Coastal Commission laws.
So this is a made-up issue to try to get a recorded vote to show
that, if you support the environment, you are for terrorism. Nothing in
the 9/11 Commission report recommended this amendment. It is totally
unnecessary.
I would just tell you that the process is working and what you see in
this amendment is trying to subvert it.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my good friend from San Diego, I want
to make a point that the exemptions offered in section C of my
amendment shall also incorporate section 102(c) of title I, subtitle A
of the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, that is Public Law 104-208, in
its entirety.
I will say there is a meeting that is going to take place in 2 weeks.
It will be the sixteenth meeting this year alone trying to move this
project forward. I think the meetings now take place so they can
schedule more meetings. We need to get this finished.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is the last piece of the border fence. We have 14
miles of the most extensive smugglers' corridor in the United States.
That is where more smugglers move cocaine, undocumented workers and
potentially terrorists through this corridor that lies between San
Diego and Tijuana.
In a bill signed by President Clinton, in fact giving the Attorney
General the right to waive the Endangered Species Act, it was
considered to be so important. We have built now of this 14-mile
stretch, 11 miles. Only 3 miles remain. The Secretary of the Navy has
sent us a letter saying that there are security reasons to have that
last piece of the border fence constructed.
Let me just tell you what is happening in the 6 years that these
slow-roll negotiations have gone on and on and on, and the California
Coastal Commission and other agencies never go along with this thing.
While that has happened, we have had North Koreans coming in the
smugglers' corridor, as documented by the Border Patrol. We have had
Iraqis coming in through that corridor. We have had Iranians coming in
through that corridor.
If you want to come in as a terrorist into the United States, do not
come in through LAX. Come in on the land border between Mexico and the
U.S. If you come through the gap in the fence that we are talking
about, you are right there at one of the most sophisticated American
naval bases in the world.
We need to build this fence. It is in line with national security, in
line with President Clinton's law. Let us get it done.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the
Ose amendment which will exempt the construction of the proposed
security barrier in the San Diego area from most Federal environmental
laws, regulations and executive orders, including four that
specifically and directly impact Indian tribes.
The Ose amendment would waive the requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, the 1996 Executive Order 13007
on sacred sites and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979.

{time} 1300

These Federal requirements were enacted by Congress and implemented
by Democratic and Republican administrations to fulfill promises we
made to native Americans that their places of worship, resting places
for the deceased, and religious freedom will not be disturbed or
intruded upon again and, instead, will be protected and preserved.
This amendment undermines those laws by precluding tribal
consultations on Native American burial grounds, religious shrines, and
cultural and historical sites located in the construction area.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ose amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter:

[[Page H8900]]

National Congress of

American Indians,

Washington, DC, October 7, 2004.
Hon. Chairman Sensenbrenner,
House Judiciary Chairman.
Honorable James Sensenbrenner: We have become aware that a
proposed amendment to H.R. 10, ``The 9/11 Recommendations
Implementation Act'', would undermine two federal statutes
designed to preserve and protect Native American cultural
heritage.
NCAI is extremely sensitive to the issues of protecting our
homeland. Tribes play a vital role in protecting our borders
with over 200 miles of United States border located on tribal
lands and with 38 tribes on or near international borders.
Additionally, significant numbers of tribes are located near
critical infrastructure, including missile silos, chemical
depots, dams and nuclear power plants.
Native peoples have proven their unwavering commitment to
protecting this country. Currently, 19,761 American Indians
and Alaskan Natives are serving in the military, and as noted
by many members of Congress, Native Americans serve in the
United States military at higher rates than any other ethnic
group.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
of 1990 (NAGPRA), P.L. 101-601, 24 U.S.C. 3002), was enacted
to protect fragile tribal cultures from exploitation. It was
designed to address the flagrant violation of the ``civil
rights of America's first citizens'' 136 C.R. Sec. 17174.
Furthermore, Congress has expressly stated in statue that
it viewed NAGPRA as part part of its trust responsibility to
Indian tribes and people, specifically stating that it
``reflects the unique relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes'' 25 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3010.
The destruction of culturally sensitive sites is
irreversible and unconscionable. The proposed amendment of
Representative Ose would undermine the very foundation of
NAGPRA and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.). At the very least we would expect that a
consultation process be considered in any legislation that
would affect cultural sites. We urge you oppose any
amendments that would undermine our rights to protect and
preserve our cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Tex G. Hall.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
The original authorization to build this fence gave the Attorney
General the opportunity to waive all of these things the previous
speaker voted for. You cannot have it both ways. You are either for
protecting this country or you are not.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ose amendment to
H.R. 10, and I refuse to play environmental politics with our national
security.
This amendment is nothing more than an extreme and unnecessary
attempt to circumvent the ongoing approval and construction process and
exempt construction of the fence from 16 public health, cultural
heritage, and environmental regulations.
The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the California
Coastal Commission are currently in negotiations now over the
completion of this security barrier. In fact, they are scheduled to
meet again October 26 of this year.
According to the California Coastal Commission: ``Feasible
alternatives are available that would significantly lessen adverse
impacts to coastal zone resources and still will enable the California
Border Patrol to meet its border patrol needs.''
Supporters of this amendment have shown no evidence to prove that
each of the 16 cultural heritage, public health, and environmental
regulations it seeks to undermine is blocking completion of the
security barrier.
How is the executive order on environmental justice blocking
completion of this security barrier?
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there are all sorts of problems along
the United States-Mexican border, but to take a sensitive area that, as
my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), has pointed out,
where there are serious issues relating to native Americans. We are
working on areas here, in terms of the massive amount of fill that
would be involved, twice the size of the Hoover Dam, is something that
people need to take a pause, a deep breath, and take a careful look.
There is a lot of environmental damage that can be done.
We cannot keep people, illegal aliens, from crossing the border. It
is porous, we know it. To move forward with this massive project now,
suspending environmental regulations, extends a precedent that I think
is chilling.
Our Capitol is a monument to our inability to get things right in
terms of things that all of us know are not going to retard terrorists
but make our Capitol into sort of a fortress. We are spending money,
trying to make people feel good. Suspending environmental regulations
in a way that is not going to have any long-term impact. I urge its
rejection.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Look, you have been able to build almost this entire fence without
the waiving of any environmental laws. The record that the gentleman
showed there just a moment ago gave the Attorney General the authority
to waive NEPA and ESEA. You are now going into a whole complicated
series of laws, including the protection of Bald Eagles, Indian rights
and things like that, Superfund issues.
I have been involved with these issues for a long, long time, living
on the coast. And I will tell the gentleman that what he is opening up
is a can of worms for lawsuits and complaints and so on.
This is not the wise way to go with this amendment, and I object to
the amendment and will ask for a recorded vote on it.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Two speakers go, we had someone on that side talking about
negotiations, that there are negotiations pending. The fact of the
matter is negotiations have been going on for 6 years, and we are no
closer to a solution. We had a speaker just previous from Oregon stand
up and make an argument for doing nothing. I am sorry, I do not
understand that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate time on
each side for 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) and I have been fighting this for the last 20 years. Many of
the same people that tried to stop us from putting up the fence when
there were rapes and murders, there was a single line of barbed wire
and people were coming right and left into the United States with truck
loads of marijuana and cocaine. I resent saying this is a made-up
issue.
I have operated out of that Navy base. Gordon England, Secretary of
the Navy, states that it is imperative, that it is dangerous to leave
that hole open. Bald Eagles in a 4-mile stretch? Give me a break.
We are at war. I sit on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and I cannot go into specifics, but do my colleagues know
where these guys are coming up? In Mexico. And do my colleagues know
what? We are vulnerable. We have a base that has nuclear ships right
next door that could blow up the whole waterfront.
It is wrong to oppose this. We need to close the hole in the dike.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, well, I have some bad news. After this 3
miles is done, there is about another 4,000 miles unfortunately that
remains at risk.
I would just ask Members to consider what we just did on this floor.
We just extended the time a little bit to get this debate right, and I
appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in doing that.
Do we know why Americans have accepted the Endangered Species Act?
Because they recognize you can take just a bit more time and do it
right.
On October 26, when they have this meeting to get this resolved, we
hope that is going to happen. We have built bridges, we have built
highways, we built the most powerful military machine in world history
with the Endangered Species Act. This is not endangering us. We should
not go back to the

[[Page H8901]]

days of ignoring this problem. Defeat this amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Let me say it straight. Nobody is against building this fence. It is
just, why waive all of these rules? We have built 14 miles of this
fence without having to waive any rules. I do not think it is
necessary. I think it is a guise and a political maneuver.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules and the champion in California on immigration issues and
protecting our country.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the eloquence of my friends,
the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose), obviously, focusing on the national security, the
homeland security, the drug interdiction aspect of this, which is very
important.
Let us talk about the environmental side of not constructing this
fence. The Tijuana Estuary happens to be a very environmentally
sensitive area. The fact that this fence is not being constructed is
jeopardizing the environmental quality in the San Diego sector right
now with the trash and the other disposal that is taking place, really
exacerbating a serious problem.
The pro-environment vote and pro-national security and homeland
security vote is to vote ``yes'' for the Ose amendment.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully rise in
opposition to the Ose amendment, which has been sprung on us this
afternoon without any notice or prior opportunity to discuss the
issues.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have spent hundreds of
hours devoted to the issues surrounding Homeland Security. Situated as
my district is in San Diego, I am concerned to secure not only our
border but also our busy port and ship-building facilities located on
San Diego Bay, which is crossed by a dramatic bridge, our international
airport, and our numerous military installations which are the home
bases for nuclear carriers and nuclear submarine. We have much to be
proud of--and much to protect.
It is challenging to us all to prioritize actions that we can take
with our Homeland Security dollars to provide increased security
against past and likely focal points for terrorists. It is important
that we assure that scarce resources are devoted to the kinds of
actions that will in fact keep our borders safe from known entry points
for terrorists.
The measure before us to expedite the long-proposed triple border
fence overturns years of effort on the part of the local communities
along the border, civic groups, and elected representatives to come to
consensus with the Border Patrol about appropriate means to enhance and
strengthen the existing fence.
Fortunately, during the past ten years since the inauguration of
Operation Gatekeeper, the numbers of illegal border crossers in the
area under consideration has dropped 80 percent.
Nonetheless, I agree that the present quality of the single fence
needs updating at least to the highest quality of fence construction
proposed and already implemented along adjacent border areas. Moreover,
I have been assured by local high tech companies which provide
sophisticated technology for other homeland security needs that much
more could be done with electronic surveillance and detection.
Similar views have been officially expressed by the California
Coastal Commission, which has jurisdiction in this area, and by the
California Coastal Conservancy which has a $6 million road and access
improvement project in this area.
In the past, the California Border Patrol has been unwilling to
pursue any alternative proposals other than the one which has been so
thoroughly rejected by state and local interest groups. Their view has
been ``my way, and it's a highway.''
However, since its February vote to object to the proposal, the
California Coastal Commission has been working with the Department of
Homeland Security's office of Homeland Security, Customs and Border
Protection in charge of construction to resolve this issue. I
understand the parties met in April to discuss their views and that
both parties expected and have planned to continue this effort at a
meeting on October 26, 2004, to continue the ongoing negotiations.
Perhaps the author was unaware of this plan. I believe we must support
this effort.
It is no surprise that the Ose amendment waives all powers of the
Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Protection of Wetlands; the
Floodplain Management; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, Liability Act as amended by Emergency Planning
and Community Right-To-Know Act; the Farmland Protection Policy Act;
the Endangered Species Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the National
Historic Preservation Act; the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act; and the Archeological Resources Protection Act.
That is because this proposal is so overwhelmingly threatening to the
sensitive lands that would be destroyed as to offend all of these acts.
Above all, this wholesale destruction is unnecessary. I would welcome
continued work with the affected parties, most particularly with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to find a solution to their
staffing needs that does not destroy millions of dollars of prior
investment by California in these sensitive areas. We must use our
scarce Homeland Security dollars in projects that are focused on major
areas where there are large numbers of border crossers who might become
a threat from terrorists.
San Diego deserves to be protected, but we have many areas in need of
new programs and technology that will address likely targets.
I urge your defeat of this proposal at this time and your willingness
to work together toward a reasoned proposal.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Ose) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in House
Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
At the end of chapter 2 of subtitle H of title V (page 602,
after line 16), add the following:

SEC. __. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS COMPACTS.

Section 611(h) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5196(h)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively;
(2) by indenting paragraph (2) (as so redesignated); and
(3) by striking the subsection designation and heading and
inserting the following:
``(h) Emergency Preparedness Compacts.--(1) The Director
shall establish a program supporting the development of
emergency preparedness compacts for acts of terrorism,
disasters, and emergencies throughout the Nation, by--
``(A) identifying and cataloging existing emergency
preparedness compacts for acts of terrorism, disasters, and
emergencies at the State and local levels of government;
``(B) disseminating to State and local governments examples
of best practices in the development of emergency
preparedness compacts and models of existing emergency
preparedness compacts, including agreements involving
interstate jurisdictions; and
``(C) completing an inventory of Federal response
capabilities for acts of terrorism, disasters, and
emergencies, making such inventory available to appropriate
Federal, State, and local government officials, and ensuring
that such inventory is as current and accurate as
practicable.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I thank my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for cosponsoring
this amendment. The gentleman has been a leader on homeland security
and emergency response issues long before 9/11. In fact, we first met
when he was the solicitor for the Camden County Firefighters
Association and I was county commissioner across the river. We have
worked together on first responder issues since then.

[[Page H8902]]

This amendment is critically important, Mr. Chairman, because it
requires the Federal Government to establish what should have been
established years ago, and that is a process of identifying emergency
preparedness compacts. Many of our regions like the Washington area
region have already established multistate, multicounty jurisdictional
plans to respond to natural and manmade disasters; but that is not the
case around the country.
This bill requires us to inventory those plans that are in place and
do work to encourage and establish models that other jurisdictions can
use. But it goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman, because this bill also
requires an inventory of assets and resources that local emergency
responders can call upon if and when a disaster occurs.
I can recall, Mr. Chairman, during the tenure of my time in Congress,
I have been on site at most disasters personally. I was walking the
freeways of the San Francisco and Oakland area after the earthquake 10
years ago with the chiefs of the San Francisco and Oakland Fire
Departments, and they were looking for people who were allegedly still
trapped in vehicles sandwiched in-between those two levels of the
freeway that had come down on top of each other. I said to the chiefs,
why are you not using thermal imagers, and they said to me, what are
thermal imagers? They had no idea that the Defense Department had
developed that technology 10 years earlier. They could have used that
to very quickly identify people who were still alive.
This bill requires a computerized inventory of those kinds of assets
that are available that are not easily identified.
I think Chief Morris in Oklahoma City, another good friend of mine,
who responded to the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, when the chief arrived he needed structural engineers.
He had children at day care that were trapped. He needed specialized
advice on how to deal with the potential of chemical and biological
agents. He had none of that available to him.
Through this amendment, not only will we do the regional preplanning
and require these compacts to be established, but we will also have an
inventory of the available technologies that first responders can use
that chief officers on the scenes of situations like Oklahoma City or
the World Trade Center or any other incident in America can make
available to them from the Federal or State governments.
It is a good amendment. I think it makes common sense, and I hope all
of our colleagues will support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no Member claiming the time in
opposition to the amendment, without objection, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for offering
this amendment. His wealth of experience on the front lines in the
first responder community shows, once again; and I am honored to join
with him in this amendment.

{time} 1315

I thank the gentleman for his years of dedication to first responders
in this country, long before Members talked about them on this floor.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I share a geographic area. Our
districts are separated only by a river. If, God forbid, there were a
terrorist attack, a mass crime, a natural disaster, his constituents
and mine would be responsible for responding to it. We are proud of the
fact that locally in our area there is cooperation. But the fact of the
matter is cooperation now happens by accident, not by design; and our
amendment is to change that. It requires that the director of FEMA do
three things: first, that the director of FEMA catalog examples of
cooperative agreements and compacts around the country.
Second, it requires that the FEMA director issue guidance on best
practices, what is working. We are going to hear from the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) talk about the capital area
plan that is working very, very well.
Thirdly, it requires an up-to-date accessible inventory of Federal
resources that would be available. In the golden hour that takes place
after such an attack or disaster, we do not have weeks or months to
study a problem. The chiefs on the ground have to decide right there
and then what to do. By making this resource available to them, I think
we will save lives and minimize disaster. I thank the gentleman for
offering this amendment, and I hope Members on both sides of the aisle
will vote a resounding ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
In closing, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). This
is a bipartisan amendment. I would just say to Members I am going to
ask for a recorded vote here because I introduced legislation almost a
dozen years ago to require our FEMA agency to establish a computerized
inventory. Twelve years later, it is still not done. As a reinforcement
of this part of the bill, I am going to ask for a show of support from
my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), whose
capital area response plan has set the model for how to go about this
regional planning and serves as an example to others.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for this amendment.
I have an amendment pending in a package we have not gotten to. My
pending amendment would in fact have relevant regions across the United
States, whether within the same State or not, engage functionally in
what I think this amendment would do. I would have a coordinator and
the coordinator could be chosen by whoever were the various officials,
whether across State lines or within a State.
Yes, it is true that the national capital region is the model for how
it should be done. Here we have three States: Maryland, Virginia and
the District of Columbia. The portions of those States closest to where
the security is of greatest need and where the Federal presence is,
because the Federal presence is as much in Virginia, Maryland and the
District of Columbia, and in some cases more so, witness the Pentagon.
This region has a long history of cooperating.
But after 9/11, even that long history of cooperation was not enough.
Because of the uniqueness of the national capital region, Congress has
said there has to be a paid coordinator for this region. Other regions,
of course, would almost surely not have the Federal Government paying
for the coordinator. The reason that the coordinator is paid for here
is because virtually the entire Federal presence is located here.
But I have worried that what a coordinator would do is not being done
in these regions. I appreciate what these Members have done. They have
leaped over the title and essentially said do it, or at least do some
of it, such as information-sharing. Other areas of their amendment make
it clear that what Congress wants is coordination across State lines if
necessary and certainly across regional lines.
I think minimally what this amendment wants is what the country
needs, and I hope because this is a bipartisan amendment that it will
pass; it will pave the way for the next step which would be of course
coordinators for the various regions. Again, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) for their amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
for his efforts. I also thank Mr. Dozor from the gentleman's staff, and
Mr. Knotts from mine for their great effort.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weldon-Andrews
amendment on emergency preparedness compacts.
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 stretched the response
capabilities of our

[[Page H8903]]

local, State, and Federal emergency agencies to the breaking point. The
attacks caused an unprecedented number of deaths, unprecedented
physical destruction, and, at times, utter chaos. The attacks also
presented planning, operational, and logistical problems of new and
different dimensions.
Both the Bush administration and 9/11 Commission have recognized that
no one community can cope with such an unparalleled catastrophe by
itself. Indeed, the President's Homeland Security Directive 5 and the
9/11 Commission's report both stressed the vital importance of ensuring
that all levels of government across the Nation have the capability to
work together efficiently and effectively.
This is precisely why emergency preparedness compacts are so
important. They enable emergency managers from different jurisdictions
and agencies to provide personnel and equipment in the event of acts of
terrorism, disasters, and emergencies. They ensure that no community is
overwhelmed.
And this is also precisely why I urge you to support the Weldon-
Andrews amendment.
Their amendment would require the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA, to establish a program supporting the
development of emergency preparedness compacts across the Nation.
This program will identify and catalog all existing emergency
preparedness compacts.
This program also will encourage jurisdictions without compacts to
enter into them by disseminating the best examples of such compacts.
Finally, this program will create, and update as necessary, an
inventory of Federal response capabilities and make it available to
State and local government officials.
I commend Representatives Weldon and Andrews for their bipartisan
leadership and vision in offering this important amendment.
As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House
Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
Page 478, insert after line 15 the following:

SECTION 5010. STUDY OF EXPANSION OF AREA OF JURISDICTION OF
OFFICE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Director of the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, shall conduct a study of the feasibility and
desirability of modifying the definition of ``National
Capital Region'' applicable under section 882 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to expand the geographic area under the
jurisdiction of the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination.
(b) Factors.--In conducting the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall analyze whether expanding the geographic
area under the jurisdiction of the Office of National Region
Coordination will--
(1) promote coordination among State and local governments
within the Region, including regional governing bodies, and
coordination of the efforts of first responders; and
(2) enhance the ability of such State and local governments
and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to a
terrorist attack within the Region.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress on the study conducted under subsection (a), and
shall include in the report such recommendations (including
recommendations for legislation to amend section 882 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002) as the Secretary considers
appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment, which is the text of H.R. 3583, will establish a
study to provide an objective analysis of whether the current
capabilities of the infrastructure in the region around our Nation's
capital are adequate in the event of a mass casualty disaster.
I have worked closely with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin),
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), and I have worked
closely on this legislation; and we are very pleased by the wide
bipartisan support of our colleagues in Maryland, Washington, and
Virginia.
This amendment calls upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to
create a commission to report to Congress its findings. In particular,
I have looked forward to working with the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to address her concerns concerning the
implementation of this amendment. I will commit to the gentlewoman to
ensure that the GSA will have major input into the study, that it will
not predispose an alteration of the definition of the national capital
region, and that it will assess existing emergency response
capabilities among the public and private sectors in the District of
Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, what capabilities would be necessary
in the event of a mass casualty incident and recommendations to correct
any shortfalls.
This commission will specifically study the major Federal interstate
highways out of America's capital. Normal rush hour traffic around our
Nation's capital can last as long as 4 hours. In the event of a
terrorist attack or other emergency in Washington, D.C., millions of
people would be unable to evacuate and get home to their families.
In June 2003, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Board urged Congress to analyze whether the current definition of the
national capital region meets current needs. I am pleased that they
support this amendment.
I would also like to recognize an important local health care
provider, Adventist HealthCare. Adventist HealthCare has two hospitals,
Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma Park and Shady Grove Adventist
in Rockville, along two of the designated evacuation routes developed
by the D.C. Division of Transportation. Adventist HealthCare has
independently committed to invest over $360 million to develop and
begin implementing a comprehensive plan to ensure that they are
prepared for the potential of a mass casualty event.
Cooperation and coordination between relevant Federal Government
agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human
Services, and private sectors, are very important.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment with regret. I believe every
Member of the national capital region and everyone who cares about the
security of the national capital region should oppose this amendment as
well.
Normally, I would have absolutely no problem with a study. This study
and this amendment, both the original bill and the amendment are called
study of an expansion of area of jurisdiction of Office of National
Capital Region Coordination. That is the special coordinator I just
spoke about in the last amendment.
The amendment itself suggests the conclusion: expansion. This is not
the time to even think about diluting the area defined by law as the
national capital region. It has not happened haphazardly. I did offer
to work with my colleagues from the greater region. I think an
objective study that was done by the region, the agencies that have the
expertise, and the gentleman has indicated that he knows that the GSA
has it, yes homeland security might be useful. I am a member of both
committees. The last thing I want to do is give the Committee on
Homeland Security, which has existing mandates to report back to
Congress, something else to do, something which I think is absolutely
unnecessary.
The expertise exists within the government, and this is something
that

[[Page H8904]]

does not require legislation at all. The resources that protect the
national capital region we need to expand, not think about diluting.
When we talk about this region, understand what we are talking about.
We are talking about the Pentagon, the CIA, NIH, Arlington Cemetery,
Andrews, Fort Belvoir, the FBI Academy, Goddard Space Center, the FDA.
We are not talking about the District of Columbia. It goes without
saying that is going to be protected. The greater Federal presence is
found in nearby Maryland, Northern Virginia, and Montgomery and Prince
George's counties.
What expense we have to go through just to protect this region I do
not want to even talk about, but it includes the flyover, the guards we
have to send out. We have to send them out if there were an agency
somewhere out in the region.
The GSA and the National Capital Planning Commission have
consistently been against sprawl of government agencies. It is already
6,000 square miles. We are talking way out into Maryland and Virginia,
Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax. They have opposed it because of
security, commuting, taxpayer cost-saving reasons. They have
consistently said we have to keep as many agencies as possible within
this region. It is much harder to protect Federal facilities; and
therefore they say, whether you are talking about embassies or Federal
agencies, they ought to be within this region.
When there is an alert, they have to send them wherever the facility
is. For economies of scale, we want to in fact keep agencies
concentrated. If Members want a study, I am willing to study; but they
do not need to come before this Congress and ask for an expensive study
to be done, distracting the Department of Homeland Security from what
it has already on its plate.
I am willing to work with the gentleman, but I think we do not need a
new study at taxpayers' expense beyond what we already have the ability
to do. The agencies that are within the national capital area, the
coordination that we do now needs far greater focus and far greater
resources. It is clear what the gentleman wants. I oppose this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the national capital region was established
in 1952 during the 82nd Congress. It includes not only the District of
Columbia; it includes in Maryland, Prince George's and Montgomery
counties. In Virginia, it is Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince
William counties.

{time} 1330

In the south, Mr. Chairman, the region goes about 30 miles. In the
north, it goes about 10 miles. If it went 30 miles to the north, it
would include Baltimore, where I happen to live.
When we adopted the Homeland Security Act in 2002, we made reference
to the national capital region. What we are asking, and I applaud my
friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is to let the Department of
Homeland Security study the security issues of this region.
If we have a problem in the Nation's capital and people try to leave
this region, they are going to want to be able to get to Crofton and
Annapolis and to Frederick, and there is going to be gridlock if we do
not have a plan that includes beyond that short distance in Maryland.
All this does is ask for a study. It does not diminish resources at
all. In fact, it will allow us to provide a more reasonable plan for
the Nation's capital.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad my colleague
from D.C. talked about protecting the FBI Academy in the national
capital region because that, in fact, is located in what the
gentlewoman calls ``way out there in Virginia'' which is my area.
I rise today in strong support of the Bartlett amendment, which
directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a study to see
if there is a need to expand the national capital region.
The terrorist attacks of 2001 demonstrated firsthand the need for the
national capital region to be expanded. The I-95 corridor, which
includes the Fredericksburg/Stafford area that I represent, served as
one of the major evacuation routes for D.C. Anybody who drove down that
95 corridor on September 11, 2001, would agree that, as one of the main
evacuation routes, it is necessary to secure sufficient infrastructure
along I-95 to handle any mass evacuation.
The current definition of the national capital region should be
expanded as a result of the new threats to homeland security. I urge
all of my colleagues to support the Bartlett amendment. I urge my
colleague from D.C. to look at where those areas that she says need to
be protected, where they are located.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I could take much longer than 30
seconds just to list the highest priority targets that are within the
national capital region.
The reality of what this is going to lead to is that you are going to
have to substantially expand the amount of money available for homeland
security or draw from other parts of the country to adequately protect
the Capitol, the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon and the immediate
suburbs of Northern Virginia, Maryland and, particularly, the District
of Columbia; you have got to provide adequate resources. This is where
the terrorists are going to target. This is ground zero. This is where
the money needs to be concentrated.
If we had enough money, we would love to go beyond that area. I do
not think we can afford to.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. I
support the amendment. This is an amendment we would like to have in
the en bloc amendment. But having this study available for the national
capital region is helpful. I think it is the right thing to do, but it
is also helpful in determining and developing a case study which could
be used in other areas.
I support the amendment.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on 9/11, our world changed. What used to be adequate
for the greater metropolitan area of Washington, which is defined by
the national capital region, generally, what was adequate then may not
be adequate now.
This is a very simple amendment. It simply asks for a commission to
study; we need to look at what the national capital area represents,
and is the infrastructure here adequate to meet the kind of a terrorist
attack that we might anticipate in the future? It is a very simple
amendment, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 23 printed in House Report 108-751.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Porter

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Porter:
At the end of subtitle C of title V (page 493, after the
item after line 21) add the following:

SEC. __. UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND TOURISM.

(a) Establishment of Under Secretary for the Private Sector
and Tourism.--Section 103(a) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 113(a)) is further amended by redesignating
paragraphs (2) through (10) in order as paragraphs (3)
through (11), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
``(2) An Under Secretary for the Private Sector and
Tourism.''.
(b) Functions.--Section 102(f) of such Act (6 U.S.C.
112(f)) is further amended--

[[Page H8905]]

(1) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(f) Under Secretary for the Private Sector and Tourism.--
The Undersecretary for the Private Sector and Tourism shall
be responsible for--''; and
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(8) and inserting a semicolon, and by adding at the end the
following:
``(9) employing an analytic and economic staff who shall
report directly to the Under Secretary on the commercial and
economic impact of Department polices;
``(10) coordinating with the Office of State and Local
Government on all matters of concern to the private sector,
including the tourism industry; and
``(11) coordinating with the Assistant Secretary for Trade
Development of the Department of Commerce on means of
promoting tourism and travel to the United States.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to H.R. 10 that will recognize the
importance of the private sector and the tourism industry in particular
in our Nation's homeland security.
I, like many Members here today in this great body, have read the 9/
11 report and am anxious to act on its findings.
I would like to quote from that report: ``The mandate of the Homeland
Security Department does not end with the government. The Department is
also responsible for working with the private sector to ensure
preparedness.''
It also says, the ``private sector preparedness is not a luxury. It
is a cost of doing business in the post 9/11 world.''
Mr. Chairman, we currently have a Special Assistant to the Secretary
for the Private Sector, before the report was published, and
unfortunately, the report says we still are not helping the private
sector enough.
As an example, the Las Vegas community in the great State of Nevada,
we had applied for the Urban Area Security Initiatives Grants and
determined that, initially, we did not qualify because we are a small
State of approximately 2 million people. With further research, they
realized that we have 38 million tourists that visit the great State of
Nevada annually. That is an example where there are some challenges
with the current law.
We need to promote this position to give it the weight, to make sure
private industry is helped and encouraged in its effort to enhance
homeland security while staying in business, protecting their employees
and their customers.
Again, as I read the 9/11 report, it mentioned how easily the
terrorists mingled with the 500 million people who travel across our
borders every year and with the hundreds of millions more who travel
internally in this country. As I said, Nevada has close to 38 million
visitors a year.
The report has some excellent ideas on how to improve transportation
and border security, and I look forward to passing those suggestions.
But the travel and tourism industry is the number one, number two and
number three industry in every State of the union. It is the common
element of the private sector in every community. Domestic travellers
spend close to $500 billion annually in this country. Foreign tourism
contributes $80 billion to our economy. Tourism generates close to $95
billion in taxes, and tourism in our country supports 7.2 million jobs,
generating $158 billion in payroll.
As a matter of fact, Las Vegas is the bellwether for an ever-changing
and improving economy, creating close to 40,000 new jobs alone in the
last year.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment ensures that the DHS has a senior official
that recognizes the importance of this industry and all industry and
provides liaison with other Federal agencies active on this very
important issues.
Our small businesses, their employees, their customers deserve to
have their needs count when homeland security decisions are made.
It is important to note that this amendment does not cost the Federal
Government in additional dollars or disrupt the operation of any
agencies. Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to pass my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) offers an
amendment that points to the very important relationships between our
homeland security and what goes on in our private sector.
The 9/11 Commission recognized the critical role that the private
sector plays in protecting our citizens from harm. The commission did
not make the recommendations contained in the gentleman's amendment,
but rather, one of the core recommendations of the 9/11 Commission did
deal with the subject matter of the gentleman's amendment; and that is
the recommendation to enhance preparedness for all disasters and
emergencies, including acts of terrorism in the private sector.
They specifically recommended that the Department of Homeland
Security promote the adoption of private sector preparedness standards
that have been developed by the American National Standards Institute.
Once again, like many of the other recommendations of the 9/11
Commission, H.R. 10 includes no provisions to deal with the need for
standards for private sector preparedness. In the aftermath of the 9/11
attacks, the commission found that many of the tenants of the World
Trade Center were unprepared for the catastrophic events that occurred.
Many businesses did not regularly practice evacuation drills. Few had
alternative communication systems, and many firms lacked the ability to
identify who was working on that particular day.
The Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez), like the Private Sector Preparedness Act which I
introduced back in July, establishes a program to ensure the safety and
security of citizens while they are at work. It would provide
businesses with the guidance they need to develop evacuation plans to
account for all of their employees and to get back in business as soon
as possible following a disaster.
We understand that 85 percent of all critical infrastructure in our
country is owned and operated by the private sector. It is, therefore,
clear that a national standard is necessary to guarantee the safety of
the American people. Yet, despite this very apparent and critical need,
H.R. 10 fails to adopt in this 9/11 Commission's recommendations and,
therefore, leaves a glaring gap in our Nation's security.
I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I think that it is one
that the department could, under existing law in the Homeland Security
Act, carry out, but the effect of the amendment will be to urge the
department to recognize the critical role of the private sector in our
preparedness for terrorist instances. And it will also, I think, point
out to the department that we must make an even greater effort to
ensure that, as we impose security, we do not jeopardize the movement
of commerce, the movement of trade; we do not jeopardize tourism, which
is so vitally important to this country, particularly to the district
and the State represented by the gentleman who offered the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I will
conclude by stating the importance of this is for the safety first of
those visiting and traveling to our communities, providing the
expertise from those individuals that deal with, on a daily basis, the
handling of millions and millions of visitors to our great State and to
our country and to the businesses that do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 9/11
Recommendations Implementation Act. I urge all of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support it. I want to thank those who brought
good ideas to the process to make this country safer.
I want to thank the 9/11 Commission for their recommendations and the
stellar work of both the chairman and the vice chairman of that
committee over a long period of time to take the

[[Page H8906]]

interest of this Nation at heart, to try to craft recommendations that
make this country safer against terrorists.
I want to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the committees of
jurisdiction in this House of Representatives. They have done an
incredible job. They have come together. They have worked hard and, by
and large, on a bipartisan basis to find good answers to tough
problems. They have worked hard to provide us with their best ideas on
how to implement these recommendations.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complained about
the process, and I must admit that I am baffled by those complaints. We
had countless hearings during the August recess in every committee of
jurisdiction. We had 20-some hearings on this issue in the last couple
of months. We have had an open amendment process at the committee
level, and we carefully considered the ideas of the commission and of
the committees' chairmen, and we came up with a response that will make
this country safer.
Some have complained that we are going too slow. Some have complained
that we are going too fast. Some said our bill was too strong. Others
said this bill is too weak. Some have complained because it is simply
their nature to complain. Despite the complaints, I am proud of this
work product.
This legislation will make this country safer. It will make our
families safer. It will ensure the safety of our children and our
parents. It is comprehensive. It reforms the government to make it more
effective in battling terrorists that want to do harm to this country.
It creates a National Intelligence Director. The new position will have
full budget authority. It creates the National Counterterrorism Center
and a Joint Intelligence Community Council. It improves terrorism
prevention and prosecution so that we can get the terrorists and those
who help them before they get us.

{time} 1345

It improves border security. It makes it harder for terrorists to
travel to America.
One provision that has drawn quite a bit of attention deals with the
convention against torture. We do not condone torture in this country
or any other country, but we do not want known terrorists and criminals
living among us either.
The courts have said criminal aliens and terrorists cannot be held
indefinitely in the United States, but the convention against torture
says we cannot deport some people back to their own country if they ask
for political asylum because of torture.
In 500 cases, the Justice Department has been forced to release alien
terrorists and other international criminals whom they cannot detain
and they cannot deport. I do not think that makes any sense. If you
find a rattlesnake in your backyard, you should not be forced to
release it in your front yard.
We have reached a common-sense solution to this problem by giving the
Justice Department the power to continue to hold those terrorists and
those alien criminals.
These are the kinds of solutions that my colleagues will find in our
bill. They will not find it in the minority's alternative.
Why is this type of provision so controversial? To me, it just makes
sense.
Yes, we disagree with the other body when it comes to making our
intelligence budget public. We believe that telling our enemies how
much we spend on certain intelligence programs diminishes our national
security. Why should we give those who want to do us harm any
information that might help them?
Yesterday, I met with three women who lost loved ones in the 9/11
attacks. I can only imagine the pain that they feel every day, and I
know the passion that they bring to this debate today. We share their
sense of loss. We share their commitment to making this country, this
Nation, safer.
I have a simple message for them. We will get this job done. The
process will work. We will pass a bill today that implements the 9/11
Commission recommendations. We will appoint conferees that will hammer
out a good conference report that will be signed by the President of
the United States.
Yes, at the end of the day, we will enact a law that will make our
country safer, this America, the United States of America, and the
people that live in it proud.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for the majority side
has expired.
Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The distinguished Speaker said he is baffled by some of the
complaints that were heard by those of us who supported the Menendez
substitute. I think our complaints are easy to understand.
We feel very strongly that the 9/11 Commission presented us with a
package of 41 recommendations that the Commission and their cochairs
all said are important. H.R. 10 only fully implements 11 of those
recommendations. The Republican bill only implements 15 of them
partially, and the Republican bill ignores or only mentions in passing
the other 15 recommendations.
The substitute that we offered on this floor implements all of the
recommendations. It does it in an effective way, and it makes the kind
of commitment that Democrats have argued for the last 2 years must be
made to make America safe.
We are investing today $20 billion more on homeland security than we
did prior to 9/11, but in the last fiscal year, when we were investing
that additional $20 billion, we were investing four times that in tax
cuts for American families who make over $1 million a year. That is the
wrong choice, it is the wrong priority, and our bill moves faster, it
moves stronger in protecting the homeland than H.R. 10 offered by the
Republican leadership.
For that reason, we believe that the Senate bill, which passed
yesterday, which reflects the contents of the Menendez substitute that
was on this floor yesterday, is the superior alternative to helping
America stay safe; and we hope that when this bill goes to conference
that the provisions of the Senate bill that are absent in H.R. 10 will
be added to the final product and come back to this floor with a
conference committee report that clearly reflects the wisdom and the
intent of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the work that they did so
well.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Porter
amendment.
Throughout this important debate, emphasis has been placed on the
need to ensure information is shared within the intelligence community.
As we conclude this debate, we now have before us an amendment that
would ensure information on the private sector is also made a part of
the process and taken into consideration in the formulation of homeland
security policy.
The facts speak for themselves. The travel and tourism industry has a
considerable impact on the U.S. economy--adding nearly 5 percent to the
GDP, generating more than half a billion dollars in revenues,
supporting more than 17 million jobs, and providing a $14 million trade
surplus for our country. Mr. Chairman, an overwhelming number of the
businesses in travel and tourism are small- to medium-sized
enterprises. Therefore, I believe DHS should be especially cognizant of
its policy and regulatory impact on the travel and tourism industry.
Whether it is our aviation industry, the aircraft designers or the
airline employees on the flight line, the hotel industry, or our
amusement parks, we need homeland security policy that will effectively
provide for the safety of our citizens and the economic vitality of our
most important industries. We should not put ourselves in a position
where in an effort to protect our infrastructure, we shut down the very
use of transportation services we are trying to protect.
In my district, Guam, like Nevada, tourism is a leading industry in
the private sector. Post-September 11 policies have already shown a
major impact on businesses in my district. What this amendment does, is
ensure this impact is assessed and considered inside DHS when
developing policy.
If you believe economic security ultimately underpins our national
security, then you should vote for the Porter amendment.
The vitality and sustainability of the travel and tourism industry is
a national economic necessity. Consumer confidence in travel and in the
economy is needed. Safety and security in travel is key to this
consumer confidence. By elevating the Special Assistant to an Under
Secretary and by encouraging coordination with local governments and
the Commerce Department, the Porter amendment gives DHS the authority
it needs to craft and execute policy to achieve these goals.
I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for his leadership, I
urge adoption of

[[Page H8907]]

his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 14
offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, amendment No. 15 offered by Mr.
Smith of New Jersey, amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Ose of California,
amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 203, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 517]

AYES--212

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--203

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Ballenger
Boehlert
Engel
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1416

Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, WAMP, PICKERING, DeFAZIO, MARSHALL,
and COLE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KIRK, VAN HOLLEN, and LUCAS of Kentucky changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 517, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Ms. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 517, I inadvertently voted
incorrectly. I had every intention of voting ``no'' on the amendment
but mistakenly pushed the green button. I did not realize my mistake
until the vote was closed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 518]

AYES--197

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch

[[Page H8908]]

Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--219

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Ballenger
Boehlert
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1423

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 518, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Ose

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Ose) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 519]

AYES--256

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--160

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda

[[Page H8909]]

Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--16

Ballenger
Boehlert
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1432

Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 519, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 520]

AYES--415

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Ballenger
Boehlert
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Kaptur
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Pombo
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1441

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 520, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission in July
presented its report to the Congress and to the American people. The
five Republicans and five Democrats on the panel put aside their
partisan differences and made 41 recommendations, which if made law,
would make this country safer. The Senate on Wednesday embraced these
recommendations with the 96-2 passage of the Collins/Lieberman National
Intelligence Reform Act.
I encourage the House to act in the same bipartisan manner as the
Senate. H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, was
written behind closed doors and fails to fully implement 30 of the 41
Commission recommendations.
The job of Congress is to work with the Executive Branch to keep
America safe, and work with our allies to make the world safe. H.R. 10
fails to do this, and places the House on a collision course with the
Senate.
Upon passage of the Senate bill, 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean
and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton praised the outstanding leadership of
Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman for their progress

[[Page H8910]]

in implementing the Commission's recommendations. They, along with
families of 9/11 victims, expressed their desire for the House to pass
a counterpart measure.
It is disappointing that the House failed to do its job today. I urge
the Conferees to adopt the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We owe it
to the American people and the families of victims of 9/11.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/
11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This legislation is vitally
important to overhaul the nation's intelligence system, which has been
in place since World War II.
There are five majors areas of reform in this legislation that will
dramatically alter the way our country approaches national security.
First, this bill establishes a National Director of Intelligence who
will have full budget authority over the nation's intelligence
agencies. For the first time in our Nation's history, we will have one
person whose sole job is to coordinate the activities and information
from all of our Nation's intelligence services.
Second, this bill restructures terrorism prevention and prosecution.
It gives law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice new
tools to prevent and prosecute potential terrorists and acts of
terrorism. Whether it is strengthening our money laundering laws to
combat terrorists' financial networks or adding additional security
measures to our printed currency, this legislation will make it more
difficult for terrorists to have access to financing and make it more
difficult for those who want to finance terrorist activities.
Third, this legislation dramatically strengthens the security of our
Nation's borders and restricts the ability of terrorists to travel. I
think we can all agree the best way to keep our country safe is keep
the terrorists out of our country. If terrorists do manage to get into
the country, this legislation gives law enforcement officers the tools
they need to make it easier to deport them. also, this legislation
makes sure that our federal air marshals have anonymity on all flights,
both domestic and foreign. We will add more federal air marshals to
foreign flights coming into this country on both U.S. and foreign
carriers. We will add a second layer of protection in cockpits, and
require the use of biometrically-protected crew badges for airline
employees.
Fourth, this bill reaches out to other nations to join us in
combating terrorism. We will require machine-readable passports for
tourists entering our country and also require that all names on
passports be translated and printed in Roman alphabet for international
travel documents and placed into watchlist systems. Also, this bill
makes it a federal crime to give a false claim of citizenship or
nationality.
Finally, this legislation restructures the government in many
important ways. It provides the authorization for the intelligence
community reorganization plans, it restructures the Department of
Homeland Security for faster and smarter funding for first responders,
and it modifies the homeland security advisory system.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation contains many important and necessary
changes to our Nation's laws. I would like to thank all the members who
have worked so hard on a bi-partisan basis to produce such a
comprehensive piece of legislation. This is a positive step in
improving the nation's intelligence system and our national security.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, Benjamin Franklin once said: The
way to be safe is never to be secure. We must never be content in the
ways things have always been, but consistently look for new ways to
achieve security in our homeland. For this, I am pleased to support
H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I believe this
legislation will provide for the much needed reorganization and new
tools to help our Nation prepare and defend against further terrorist
attacks.
After the horrific attacks of September 11th, it was evident that our
Government needed to be transformed to meet the new challenges of this
dangerous world. Soon after 9/11, and under the leadership of President
Bush, various agencies with homeland security roles throughout the
government were brought under the control and vision of a single
Department, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
The hope was to break down the existing barriers and create more
cooperation and communication in this critical field.
Congress is continuing this effort to improve our homeland security
with the passage of H.R. 10. This legislation clearly recognizes that
the United States can no longer afford to think of defending the
homeland as being the responsibility of just one Department--be it
Homeland Security, Justice or Defense. Many aspects of our government
and society, from the FBI, to DOD's Northern Command, the Intelligence
Community, the Treasury Department, Immigration, local law enforcement,
our corporate partners, and the academic community all have important
roles to play. All of these players must work together, in concert, to
achieve the real results worthy of this great nation.
The 9/11 Commission, which is the basis of this legislation, found
that government institutions failed to adapt to the threat of terrorism
for more than a decade, enabling the terrorists failed to exploit deep
institutional failings within our government. These failures, in part,
stemmed from a strict stove-piped structure.
Our enemy is asymmetrical and unconcerned about such things as the
internal structural uneasiness of sharing information inside the
Intelligence Community and between other organizations. However, our
enemies will certainly do everything they can to benefit from this
ingrained culture--to the detriment of our society.
The 9/11 Commission concluded that: ``the September 11th attacks fell
into the void between the foreign and domestic threats.''
The Report continues: ``Information was not shared, sometimes
inadvertently or because of legal misunderstandings. Analysis was not
pooled. Effective operations were not launched. Often the handoffs of
information were lost across the divide separating the foreign and
domestic agencies of the government. . . . Action officers should have
drawn on all available knowledge in the government. This management
should have ensured that information was shared and duties were clearly
assigned across agencies, and across the foreign-domestic divide.''
Although people have levied fault on the CIA and FBI, I believe we
must not single out individual agencies. Instead, we should use our
energies to focus on the culture and structure of our government. As
the 9/11 Commission report continues:

The problem is nearly intractable because of the way the
government is currently structured. Lines of operational
authority run to the expanding executive departments, and
they are guarded for understandable reasons: the DCI commands
the CIA's personnel overseas; the secretary of defense will
not yield to others in conveying commands to military forces;
the Justice Department will not give up the responsibility of
deciding whether to seek arrest warrants. But the result is
that each agency or department needs its own intelligence
apparatus to support the performance of its duties. It is
hard to break down stovepipes when there are so many stoves
that are legally and political entitled to have cast-iron
pipes of their own.

The problem is clear: stove-piping of resources and responsibilities,
along with not sharing the information or analysis collected is
hindering our Nation's ability to remain secure. Instead of stove-
piping, we must increase the flow of information inside and between
government agencies while still protecting vital sources. If we are
going to achieve a greater level of security in this nation, we need to
break down the barriers to homeland security. We must not be bogged
down in a need-to-know mentality, but most rise to a need-to-share
focus.
The 9/11 Commission Recommendations bears out this solution.
Repeatedly, the Commission calls for unity and the unifying of efforts
across the government. It calls for unifying strategic intelligence and
operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-
domestic divide with a new National Counterterrorism Center. Unifying
the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director.
And, unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism efforts.
The old ways of thinking about and organizing our government have
failed us. We have been confined by a vision of the past. Of local vs.
federal, of domestic vs. foreign intelligence, of national security vs.
law enforcement.
We instead need to focus on unity of purpose and on communication,
collaboration and coordination that transcends our old structure. Only
by working together, as a single unit, can we be secure. And I believe
that H.R. 10 is the right step forward in doing just that.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the 9/
11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I do so not because I disagree
on the urgent need to reform our intelligence infrastructure. On the
contrary, the 9/11 Commission clearly, articulately and convincingly
makes a compelling case that the U.S. intelligence network is in great
need of overhauling.
My reasons for voting against the measure deal less with the concept
of intelligence reform and more with the substance of the bill we are
considering today. The measure before us today is improperly titled.
The ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act'' should really be re-
titled as the ``Immigration Reform Act of 2004.''
I am particularly sensitive to issues of homeland security and
intelligence capabilities. My district encompasses the majority of the
City of Detroit, which borders our northern neighbor--Canada. Detroit
is the Motor City capital of the world, and as such, we are
economically dependent on the cross-border auto trade transported
through the Port of Detroit. Securing the critical infrastructure such
as the

[[Page H8911]]

Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, and the Port of Detroit
is vital to the economic wellbeing of our city, region, state, and
nation. Protecting the rights of way of these thoroughfares is critical
to the health of the American automobile industry, the largest industry
in the manufacturing sector. Protecting these assets against terrorist
attack is so important that the City of Detroit is one of the few major
cities in the United States that has created an Office of Homeland
Security. Matters of homeland security and enhanced intelligence
capabilities are urgent concerns to my district and they should not be
trivialized. The Republican Leadership in this chamber had the
opportunity to stitch together a bill that would strengthen the
nation's intelligence apparatus, but frankly it has ``pooched'' the
job. The Leadership has confused the 9/11 Commission's urging to
enhance America's security apparatus with its predilection to crackdown
on the nation's immigrants.
The only area where the bill makes its mark on strengthening the
intelligence community is the establishment of a National Intelligence
Director (NID). But all progress at intelligence reform ends there--
with the creation of NID. We create a position but gives the person
occupying it no powers and no authority to implement any significant
changes in the intelligence bureaucracy. For example, the NID has no
budget authority, no hiring authority, and on reprogramming authority.
By establishing a position of power without authority to hire or fire
or to control the budget, we are in fact creating a paper tiger, a
position with a lot of roar and no bite. The members of the 9/11
Commission have expressed their support for a strong NID, but the bill
crafted by the Republican leadership fails to meet their expectations.
This bill does very little in the way of strengthening the
intelligence community. It goes a long way in turning the U.S.
immigration system upside down. I support immigration reform, but we
should not be enacting such sweeping changes under a bill whose purpose
is to reform and reorganize the intelligence community. The Republican
Leadership is confused. It took its eye off the goal of intelligence
reform and moved forward with a bill that cracks down on immigrants.
Let me highlight some of the more egregious provisions of this bill.
The ``Lone Wolf'' provision would remove the requirement that non-
citizen targets of secret intelligence surveillance be connected to a
foreign power. The bill would permit the deportation of individuals to
countries lacking a functioning government--an issue that is currently
before the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill makes asylum claims more
restrictive. The bill restricts the use of internationally accepted
consular identification cards. Immigrants are being used as a wedge
issue in this presidential election year. The bill is designed to
mobilize the base vote of neo-isolationists and not the legitimate
security concerns confronting our country and our countrymen and women.
By using immigration as a wedge issue, we are distracted from taking
a thoughtful approach to improving our intelligence capability. We are
undermining our efforts to combat terrorism. Many on my side of the
aisle will be voting to support this bill in order to move the process
forward in the hope that a final product will be closer to the bill
that was approved in the other chamber. My vote today is based on the
substance and the merit of the provisions contained in this bill before
us today. If a conference agreement can produce a bill that truly
strengthens our intelligence community, it will have my support. Today,
I must cast my vote against the passage of H.R. 10.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act
(H.R. 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by
giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the
reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they
definitely will make us less free. H.R. 10 also wastes American
taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid
programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and
refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation's vital
interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American
blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to ``democratize'' the world.
Disturbingly, H.R. 10 creates a de facto national ID card by
mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued
drivers licenses and birth certificates and even require including
biometric identifiers in such documents. State drivers license
information will be stored in a national database, which will include
information about an individual's driving record!
Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates,
and linking them together via a national database, creates a national
ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand
that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim
they're merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense!
This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it
creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still
stamped with the name of your state. It is just a matter of time until
those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability
to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the
hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American
citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance
actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending
terrorist in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is
what happened with ``suspicious activity reports'' required by the Bank
Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to
waste countless hours snooping through the private financial
transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions
exceeded $10,000.
Furthermore, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority
to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification
before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a
bank account, or seeking medical assistance). Nothing in our
Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials
to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any
crime.
H.R. 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the
PATRIOT Act. H.R. 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended ``to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.''
Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-
life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the
sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before
dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of
Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican
administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-
abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future
administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this
bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.
Congress could promote both liberty and security by encouraging
private property owners to take more responsibility to protect
themselves and their property. Congress could enhance safety by
removing the roadblocks thrown up by the misnamed Transportation
Security Agency that prevent the full implementation of the armed
pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from
Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was
ruled out of order.
I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my
amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious
activities reports with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. This
amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but
it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people
who truly pose a threat to our safety.
Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced
several pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and
secure the United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to
carry firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support
counterterrorism investigations and operations. I also introduced a
bill to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal
to bring to justice those who committed the attacks of September 11,
2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
The foreign policy provisions of H.R. 10 are similarly objectionable
and should be strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the serious
shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, upon whose report this legislation
is based. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page report there
is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign policy creates
enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we consider the root
causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic explanations offered thus
far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will not be safer.
Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is
a section providing for the United States to increase support for an
expansion of the United Nations ``Democracy Caucus.'' Worse still, the
bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into
our State department. The last thing we should do if we hope to make
our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the
United Nations.
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more
sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)--which will be in the U.S. to
monitor our elections next month--and other international non-
governmental organizations (NGOs). even worse, this legislation
actually will create an ``ambassador-at-large'' position

[[Page H8912]]

solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly
promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after
all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no
popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and
doing the opposite.
This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending
United States' taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media,
which inexplicably are referred to as ``independent media.'' This is an
unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally does anyone believe
that citizens of countries where the U.S. subsidizes certain media
outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? How would
Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a certain
editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to
foreign media funded by the U.S. government as ``independent media.''
The U.S. government should never be in the business of funding the
media, either at home or abroad.
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence
community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy,
the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of
bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are
supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that
failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is
wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence
community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever
since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have
nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the
CIA's overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and
the CIA's training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the
1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have
actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It
would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of
our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning
intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they
belong.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I vigorously oppose H.R. 10.
It represents the worst approach to combating terrorism--more federal
bureaucracy, more foreign intervention, and less liberty for the
American people.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 10, the
legislation that ostensibly implements the recommendations made by the
independent commission that investigated the federal government's
failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Let me say at the outset that this bill is certainly not perfect.
But, I am pleased it includes a number of critical aviation security
improvements I have pushed for.
It also includes the core recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission
to create a National Intelligence Director to centralize coordination
and oversight of the disparate branches of our intelligence community.
Therefore, despite some flaws, I will vote for H.R. 10, with the hope
that its shortcomings can be resolved in the conference with the
Senate.
I want to expand on my comments about the aviation security
provisions in H.R. 10. I am pleased that this bill provides $60 million
over two years for the deployment of checkpoint explosive detection
equipment. The bill also directs the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to give priority to developing, testing,
improving, and deploying equipment at screening checkpoints that will
be able to detect nonmetallic weapons and explosives on individuals and
in their baggage.
This bill would implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation that TSA
not wait until the issues surrounding a successor to the CAPPS program
are resolved before utilizing all available government terrorist watch
lists to prescreen passengers boarding an aircraft. The air carriers
currently manage the ``no-fly'' and ``automatic selectee'' lists that
they receive from TSA. Because the airlines have access to these lists,
some government agencies are unwilling to give their watch lists to TSA
because they are reluctant to share intelligence information with
private firms. This problem will be resolved when TSA takes over the
passenger pre-screening function, as mandated by this bill.
Perimeter security is still a weak link in aviation security as
evidenced by the recent events at the Orlando airport in which workers
were charged with sneaking drugs and guns aboard commercial aircraft.
Importantly, the bill requires TSA to submit a study to Congress on
airport perimeter security to determine the feasibility of access
control technologies and procedures, as well as an assessment of the
feasibility of physically screening all individuals prior to entry into
secure areas of an airport.
With regard to strategic planning, the bill requires the Department
of Homeland Security to develop a risk-based strategic plan to protect
transportation assets in general, and aviation assets in particular.
The bill would also require the TSA to develop a threat matrix that
outlines each threat to the civil aviation system, and the layers of
security to respond to that threat. A strong strategic planning process
may avert any future ``failures of imagination'' as cited by the
Commission.
The bill also incorporates H.R. 4914, the Aviation Biometic
Technology Utilization Act, which I introduced with Chairman Mica.
Biometric technologies can improve aviation security, and the TSA must
act quickly to promulgate guidelines and standards for biometrics so
that airports can equip with biometric access control technology.
In addition, the bill incorporates H.R. 4056, the Commercial Aviation
MANPADS Defense Act of 2004, which I also introduced with Chairman
Mica. MANPADS have been used against commercial airplanes and we must
do what we can to reduce the threat of MANPADS by working to reduce
their availability and developing plans to secure airports and the
aircrafts arriving and departing from airports against MANPADS attacks.
The bill contains several other important provisions including a
pilot program to determine whether federal flight deck officers can be
permitted to carry weapons on their persons, as well as directing TSA
to: conduct a pilot program for the use of blast resistant cargo
containers; continue its efforts to develop technology to screen cargo;
conduct a study on the viability of technologies that would provide
discreet methods of communication for flight cabin crew to notify
pilots in the event of a security breach, and a study on the costs and
benefits associated with the use of secondary flight deck barriers. In
addition, I am pleased a provision was included to require the Director
of the Federal Air Marshal Service to develop operational procedures
that ensure the anonymity of Federal air marshals.
I am also pleased that this legislation implements the core
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--creation of a National
Intelligence Director. While the bill may not create quite as robust an
NID as the Senate legislation, it does represent a useful step in
bringing accountability to the intelligence community and improving
coordination.
Despite the aviation security provisions I mentioned previously,
there are shortcomings in the transportation security provisions of
H.R. 10. For example, there is no money to deploy explosive detection
systems to screen checked baggage. In the security bill approved by the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I sit, we
included an additional $250 million in mandatory spending to deploy
these critical devices. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped out
of the version of H.R. 10 on the floor today. Further, H.R. 10 does
next to nothing to improve rail, mass transit, or port security. These
shortcomings need to be addressed in the conference with the Senate.
I am also concerned that H.R. 10 is weak on combating the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The bill just requires a
study of how to strengthen our non-proliferation programs. We don't
need another study. We already know what needs to be done. In 2001, a
bipartisan commission recommended tripling funding to $3 billion a year
for programs to help secure nuclear materials around the world from
terrorists. The non-proliferation programs under Nunn-Lugar should also
be expanded beyond the states of the former Soviet Union in order to
secure nuclear materials in other countries, notably Pakistan. The non-
proliferation provisions of H.R. 10 should be strengthened in
conference.
I am opposed to a provision in H.R. 10 that would violate U.S.
obligations under the Convention on Torture by allowing the U.S. to
deport suspects to countries that might torture them. While I supported
an amendment that was adopted during consideration of H.R. 10 to
slightly improve the provision in H.R. 10 authorizing deportation of
suspects to countries with atrocious human rights records so it wasn't
quite as objectionable, I would rather see the provision removed all
together during the conference with the Senate.
I am concerned that the civil liberties protections in H.R. 10 are
too weak. H.R. 10 creates a Civil Liberties Protection Officer that is
appointed by and reports to the NID, which means he or she is not
independent. Under these circumstances, the officer is unlikely to
provide robust protection for civil liberties. By contrast, the 9/11
Commission and the Senate legislation propose an independent Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Senate legislation also
includes an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as a
Privacy Officer within the National Intelligence Authority. The Board
would continually review legislation, regulations and policies for
their impact on privacy and civil liberties. The Board would be
required to issue reports to Congress at least twice a year and to make
the reports available to the public. I hope that the Senate

[[Page H8913]]

provisions on civil liberties oversight will be included in any final
legislation that emerges from conference.
Finally, I have serious concerns about a number of provisions in H.R.
10 that will expand the law enforcement powers of the federal
government. As one who voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT Act
because of my concerns about its impact on the civil liberties of
average American citizens, I am concerned that H.R. 10 will
unnecessarily expand the reach of the federal government in ways that
are not necessary to defeat terrorists, but will pose a lasting threat
to the rights we are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I would
rather that these provisions be considered carefully by Congress next
year during the debate over whether to renew the PATRIOT Act rather
than having them slipped into H.R. 10 with little debate.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern on
the course our Congress has taken.
We had a clear choice before us to have passed the Menendez
substitute, a bipartisan approach that followed the recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission--a Commission that for three years studied the
vulnerabilities of our national intelligence community and homeland
security and then provided thoughtful, nonpartisan recommendations.
Or pass a partisan House Republican bill that was slapped together in
a matter of months to address immediate political measures.
Unfortunately, this Republican led Congress chose the quick fix.
It is important to note that the Senate took these same nonpartisan
recommendations to heart and passed a bipartisan bill overwhelmingly
96-2.
As legislators and as leaders of this country, our job is incomplete.
We will be revisiting these measures again--and again--until we get it
right.
Because, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to get this wrong. At stake
is the safety and security of the American people and the future of our
children.
H.R. 10 implements only eleven of the forty-one 9/11 Commission
recommendations. However, included in this legislation are more than
fifty extraneous provisions not recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
As a senior member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, I am appalled that this legislation has not done more to
protect our ports, our national transit systems and our overall
transportation infrastructure.
These are obvious vulnerabilities that are not being addressed! Think
about the not so obvious vulnerabilities that are being overlooked!
It was our transportation vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists
used to attack us on that fateful day and it is likely that it will be
transportation that these terrorists will target again.
Aside from the Aviation Subcommittee, our Full Committee was not
consulted on the drafting of this bill and I believe that some of the
aviation provisions do not go far enough.
For example, H.R. 10 simply states that priority be given to improved
explosive detection. This is disingenuous. As the Menendez substitute
clearly states all high-risk passengers must be screened for explosives
until the explosive detection technology is improved. We must be clear
and we must be direct when we address the security of the American
people.
On that note, I would like to commend one provision that is in this
bill. H.R. 10 took the Commission's recommendation on blast resistant
containers and language that I recently introduced to create a blast
resistant container pilot program that integrates this technology with
our aviation system. This is an important step and one that is long
over due.
Since 9/11, the Transportation and Infrastructure has embraced a
bipartisan approach in reviewing and addressing the transportation
vulnerabilities that face our Nation.
We have accomplished much.
Last week our Committee unanimously reported a bipartisan transit
security bill last week that would provide critically needed funding
for security improvements for our public transit systems.
Unfortunately, these measures will not be included or addressed in
H.R. 10.
Mr. Chairman, it is because of these reasons that we will return to
this Chamber and revisit these vital issues again and again until we
get it right.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, our antiquated federal pay
system does not adequately account for the unique needs of federal law
enforcement officers.
For example, the current salary, including all overtime payments, for
a FBI Special Agent in San Francisco is $56,453. But even a ``low-
income home'' within a 60 to 90 minute commute from San Francisco costs
$300,000, requiring a mandatory income of $86,000. As a result, agents
commonly face four hour daily commutes on top of their regular ten hour
plus shifts. Because staffing decisions are based on the needs of the
nation, today many federal law enforcement officers are being asked to
live beyond their means in order to serve their country.
Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission Report's specific policy
recommendations are underpinned by two important general conclusions.
First, that the FBI is central to the war on terrorism and second, the
need to provide adequate resources to FBI Agents. In fact, on pages
425-426 of their report, the 9/11 Commission says:

A specialized and integrated national security workforce
should be established at the FBI consisting of agents,
analysts, linguist, and surveillance specialists who are
recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the
development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep
expertise in intelligence and national security.

Mr. Chairman, developing and maintaining an ``institutional culture
imbued with deep expertise'' is severely undermined by the Bureau's
inability to retain highly skilled agents in high-cost of living areas.
Often, agents will seek to transfer out of high-cost of living areas,
like New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, to name a few. The
disincentive to stay in high-cost of living areas makes it more
difficult for the FBI to recruit the best agents to serve in
supervisory positions, and thus creates an obstacle to creating the
type of institutional culture the Report calls for. If the high-cost of
living in certain areas was mitigated, this disincentive could be
removed, and it would be easier to create a more healthy seniority
system that would allow a strong intelligence culture to flourish.
Also on page 426, the 9/11 Commission says ``The FBI should fully
implement a recruiting, hiring, and selection process for agents and
analysts that enhances its ability to target and attract individuals
with educational and professional backgrounds in intelligence,
international relations, language, technology, and other relevant
skills.''
Mr. Chairman, the status quo's inability to fairly compensate FBI
agents in high-cost areas is undermining the Bureau's ability to
recruit and retain highly skilled individuals in crucial locations. For
instance, cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are
uniquely vulnerable to terrorist threats. The Report makes it clear
that Congress must undertake efforts to ensure that the FBI is able to
attract and retain employees possessing high-level skills. These
employees must be fairly compensated with consideration of the cost of
living in these areas in order for the Bureau to retain their services.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 takes a positive first step by providing
recruitment and retention bonuses to federal law enforcement,
particularly the FBI. However, it is imperative that this Congress act
on fundamental pay reform in an expeditious manner.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is
intelligence reform more in name than in reality. In fact, the
Republican Leadership's bill, H.R. 10, ignores most of the
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. Of the 41 recommendations
made by the Commission, H.R. 10 fully implements only 11 of them.
On October 2, the Family Steering Committee, which is made up of the
families of
9/11 victims, issued a statement that said, ``House of Representatives
bill H.R. 10, drafted in response to the 9/11 Commission
recommendations, is flawed because it does not provide for a strong
National Intelligence Director. It also contains controversial,
divisive provisions which may have merit but warrant separate debate.''
The Family Steering Committee's statement called on the House to adopt
the bipartisan Senate bill, which has been championed in the House by
Representatives Shays, Maloney and Menendez.
It should come as a surprise to no one that the Republican
Leadership, which long opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission,
turned a deaf ear to the views of the Commission and the 9/11 families.
The more than 50 extraneous provisions that were not recommended by the
9/11 Commission remain in the bill. Some of these provisions are very
controversial. To add insult to injury, the House Leadership restricted
the opportunity of Members to amend and strengthen the bill.
There have been two distinctly different approaches followed in the
House and Senate on the critical issue of implementing the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the Senate, there has been
an open and bipartisan process used to develop a bill that truly
reflects the recommendations of the Commission. The Collins-Lieberman
legislation in the Senate has been endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, the
9/11 Family Steering Committee, and even the White House. The Senate
bill, which was adopted on a vote of 96 to 2, was the product of
extensive deliberation and bipartisan cooperation.
The Republican Leadership in the House took a different road. They
introduced a bill

[[Page H8914]]

that was developed in secret with no meaningful input from Democrats.
This partisan process has produced a weak bill that does not reflect
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. For all these reasons, I
voted for the Menendez substitute, which is based on the bipartisan
Senate bill and fully implements the reforms recommended by the 9/11
Commission. The Menendez substitute is supported by the 9/11 families.
I regret that the House narrowly defeated this proposal last night.
By supporting the Menendez substitute, and opposing the flawed and
wholly insufficient underlying bill, I hope we can send a clear message
that we stand with the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families in
supporting genuine, meaningful intelligence reform. I hope this message
will be heard by the House and Senate conferees as they work to
reconcile the House and Senate bills.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 10,
the so-called 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. At a time when
our national security is at risk and our brave troops are fighting
overseas, it is shameful that the Republican leadership has chosen to
present a partisan bill that does not effectively implement the
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. In fact, of the
Commission's 41 recommendations, H.R. 10 only fully implemented eleven.
Fifteen are not implemented at all, and another 15 are incomplete.
On the other hand, many of the provisions in H.R. 10 go far beyond
the recommendations of the September 11th Commission. This is obviously
an attempt by the Republican leadership to insert previously rejected
proposals into this important bill at the final hour. In fact, the 9/11
Commission's Republican Chairman, Thomas Kean, said that the
contentious provisions were being promoted by ``people who don't want
the intelligence legislation to pass.'' Former Representative Lee
Hamilton, the Commission's vice chairman, said, ``Consideration of
controversial provisions at this late hour can harm our shared
purpose.'' The Family Steering Committee of the victims of September
11th is concerned that if H.R. 10 is passed by the House, ``the hard
work of the Commission and the dedication of the 9/11 families will be
undermined, as will the safety of our nation.''
Many of the controversial and mean-spirited measures included in this
bill are extremely harmful to immigrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees.
These measures have been included although they do not make our nation
any safer. H.R. 10 allows immigration officials to deport foreign
nationals for whatever reason they see fit, devoid of judicial review,
to countries that openly use torture when interrogating prisoners.
Unbelievably, H.R. 10 places an extreme burden of proof on asylum-
seekers, many of whom have been victims of brutality in their native
lands, requiring them to provide evidence that he or she would be
tortured if returned to his or her point of origin. This violates the
current standards established under the U.N. Convention Against Torture
already in place. And what kind of message does it send to our troops
engaged in combat? If the United States is seen by the world as being
willing to outsource torture, how can we be sure that our military men
and women captured overseas will be treated decently?

In addition, H.R. 10 would further undermine the right to basic due
process protections for non-citizens by prohibiting habeas corpus
review of many immigration decisions and by prohibiting federal courts
from granting stays of deportation while cases are pending.
This bill even includes language blocking use of matricula consular
cards, for identification purposes, even though the House voted to
allow their use. This provision has nothing to do with the 9/11
Commission and protecting national security. It is simply an irrelevant
action.
Furthermore, this legislation does not properly refocus our
intelligence efforts on Afghanistan, the nation which harbored the
terrorists who attacked us on September 11, as the 9/11 Commission
recommended. H.R. 10 also does not include Commission recommendations
to provide strong budgetary authority for the newly-created National
Intelligence Director, protect civil liberties through the creation of
an effective and independent civil liberties board, or address the need
for Congressional reform. That is simply unacceptable.
I supported the Menendez amendment which institutes the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, is a closer reflection of the
bipartisan legislation passed in the Senate, and does not include the
dangerous and extraneous provisions in H.R. 10. Unfortunately, that
amendment was not successful; but fortunately those conferees will have
one more opportunity to get it right. We should now support the Senate
bill and move to protect our nation's safety while preserving the
beliefs and traditions of liberty and freedom we cherish. H.R. 10 does
not make the United States as safe as it can be. I urge my colleagues
to vote no on H.R. 10.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that our current
intelligence system has failed us in recent years.
I do not doubt the capacities of individual analysts within our
intelligence agencies and know them to be talented and capable
individuals. But the configuration of the present intelligence system
has denied our leaders the information we need to adequately warn of
and respond to terrorist threat.
Our current intelligence structure dates to the National Security Act
of 1947. It is a structure directed to a threat that no longer exists,
the Soviet Union. We won the Cold War and it is time to reconfigure our
intelligence capabilities to fight the next major threat of our
generation, the threat of international terrorism.
The bill before us, H.R. 10, responds substantively to the broad
range of recommendations offered by the 9/11 Commission. It creates a
strong National Intelligence Director with strengthened budget
authorities and new flexibility to redirect funding to urgent needs.
All management of tasking, collection, analysis and dissemination of
intelligence will be centralized within the office of the NID.
At the same time, the legislation acknowledges the very real
requirements of the largest user of national intelligence products, the
Department of Defense. H.R. 10 maintains full support for DOD during a
time of war--efforts to integrate our national intelligence effort
should not come at the expense of the requirements of warfighters.
Indeed the 9/11 Report recommended that DOD military intelligence
programs should remain part of that Department's responsibility.
We should reject the criticisms we have heard today about the scope
of the House bill. The House shouldn't be a rubber stamp for
legislation considered by the other body, any more than the other body
should be the rubber stamp for the broad recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. Passage of this bill today will allow both chambers to move
to conference to reconcile the differences between the two pieces of
legislation.
Similarly, I disagree with the notion argued here today that because
opponents consider certain provisions to somehow be ``extraneous,'' we
should refuse to consider them. The preface to the 9/11 Report
succinctly describes the mandate of the Commission: ``How did this
happen, and how can we avoid such a tragedy again?'' Such also is our
mandate--and we should not consider our work done with a retooling of
our intelligence apparatus.
The scope of Public Law 107-306, establishing the 9/11 Commission,
was far broader than an examination of the intelligence agencies. It
directed an investigation of the ``facts and circumstances relating to
the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, including those relating
to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy,
immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist
organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight
and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the
Commission.''
Improvements to our border security, restrictions on terrorist travel
and enhanced authorities to deport illegal aliens all respond to the
concerns raised in the 9/11 Report and all provide substantive
improvements to the security of our nation.
Intelligence reform only matters if we are able to do something with
the information our agencies gather. A strong and effective National
Intelligence Director is only relevant if we give other agencies of the
government the tools they need to act on that improved intelligence.
It would be irresponsible for Congress to take a pass on acting on
the clear security deficiencies described in the 9/11 Report and H.R.
10 answers that challenge.
In my decade of service in this institution, I have taken seriously
my responsibility to cautiously weigh the consequences of our action on
the Constitutional rights of citizens and to carefully evaluate the
expansion of federal powers. I reflect on the perspective of that
service as I consider H.R. 10.
H.R. 10 takes a significant step forward in recognizing this inherent
tension in a democracy by requiring the National Intelligence Director
to appoint a Civil Liberties Protection Officer to be responsible for
ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are protected. All proposed
and final rules would also be subject to an assessment of privacy
rights. I believe this legislation achieves the necessary balance
between protecting our society and protecting individuals.
There will still be more to do--both bodies have a responsibility to
reorganize internally to consolidate congressional oversight. I am
concerned that the other body has adopted a process that is a hollow
semblance of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Far from
consolidating oversight, amendments adopted by the other body will have
the effect of pretending at consolidation while continuing business as
usual. This should not stand and the House must take the lead in
demonstrating the resolve to actually act upon the

[[Page H8915]]

call of the Commission to streamline oversight by the legislative
branch.
I encourage my colleagues to support this measure so that we may take
the next step of moving this legislation to conference with the other
body and producing a final product that will comprehensively address
the range of recommendations presented by the 9/11 Commission.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of efforts
that have been taken to address the concerns of the private security
industry in the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Under the wise
guidance of the Judiciary Committee leadership, provisions have been
included in this bill that will have a positive effect on the overall
dependability of private security services. While I would contend that
these provisions do not go far enough, they are a clear improvement,
and I urge my colleagues to support their inclusion in the law.
The relevant provisions, which were included in H.R. 10 with
industry-wide support, allow private security guard companies to have
access to federal background checks unless prohibited by their home
state, and also provide for the creation of a national clearinghouse to
be used in processing these requests. Federal background checks will
ensure a safer, more secure private security industry, and will allow
private security companies to protect themselves against the increased
liability that could come with hiring an individual with a relevant
criminal history. In addition, the realization of the national
clearinghouse is absolutely essential, given the excessive delays that
are often incurred within the varied state systems that are currently
used in processing these background check requests.
While allowing private security companies to receive criminal
background information on prospective employees through a streamlined
process is certainly a positive development, I contend that more should
be done to secure this vital industry. Background checks should be
required for all private security guards, to ensure that dangerous
criminals and terrorists are never employed in positions of such power
and responsibility.
Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee for their efforts in addressing this important issue, and I
hope to continue working with them in the future to ensure that all of
our nation's assets are adequately secured.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the
Republican's so-called
9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act.
The 9/11 Commission has worked for months in a thoughtful, thorough
and bipartisan manner to recommend concrete ways to reorganize and
restructure Federal counterterrorism efforts to ensure we are better
able to prevent future attacks. Congress should have immediately
adopted those recommendations, but Republicans have blocked that effort
today.
Americans should not be fooled by the House Republicans' cynical
exercise today. They are circumventing real reform of our Nation's
intelligence community. Republicans may say they have listened to the
9/11 Commission. But, make no mistake, the bill before us does not
fully implement the Commission's recommendations--it doesn't even come
close. Instead, it flies in the face of the Commission's sound and
deliberative efforts.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. House Republicans
are simply trying to score political points by passing a bill with the
same title as the 9/11 Commission hoping no one reads the fine print.
If the Republican leadership were serious about reform, they would have
gotten their caucus in line and come forth with a bipartisan bill that
mirrors the Commission recommendations like the bill the Senate has
passed. Republicans chose not to do so.
Let's stand with the families of September 11 and pass real
intelligence reform. Let's put the Republican's election politics aside
and get on with the business of protecting the American people.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence community,
terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and
international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 827, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment
No. 14 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other
amendment?
The Clerk will designate the amendment on which a separate vote has
been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment:
Strike section 3006 (page 242, line 18 through page 244,
line 9) and redesignate provisions and conform the table of
contents accordingly.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 210, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 521]

AYES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--210

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)

[[Page H8916]]

Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Ballenger
Boehlert
Cunningham
Filner
Franks (AZ)
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1500

Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 521, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. MALONEY. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Maloney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 10 to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert Attachment
1, as modified by the additional attachments:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY

Subtitle A--National Intelligence Authority

Sec. 101. National Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 102. National Intelligence Director.

Subtitle B--Responsibilities and Authorities of National Intelligence
Director

Sec. 111. Provision of national intelligence.
Sec. 112. Responsibilities of National Intelligence Director.
Sec. 113. Authorities of National Intelligence Director.
Sec. 114. Enhanced personnel management.
Sec. 115. Security clearances.
Sec. 116. National Intelligence Reserve Corps.
Sec. 117. Appointment and termination of certain officials responsible
for intelligence-related activities.
Sec. 118. Reserve for Contingencies of the National Intelligence
Director.

Subtitle C--Office of the National Intelligence Director

Sec. 121. Office of the National Intelligence Director.
Sec. 122. Deputy national intelligence directors.
Sec. 123. National Intelligence Council.
Sec. 124. General Counsel of the National Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 125. Intelligence Comptroller.
Sec. 126. Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the National
Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 127. Privacy Officer of the National Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 128. Chief Information Officer of the National Intelligence
Authority.
Sec. 129. Chief Human Capital Officer of the National Intelligence
Authority.
Sec. 130. Chief Financial Officer of the National Intelligence
Authority.
Sec. 131. National Counterintelligence Executive.

Subtitle D--Additional Elements of National Intelligence Authority

Sec. 141. Inspector General of the National Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 142. Ombudsman of the National Intelligence Authority.
Sec. 143. National Counterterrorism Center.
Sec. 144. National intelligence centers.

Subtitle E--Education and Training of Intelligence Community Personnel

Sec. 151. Framework for cross-disciplinary education and training.
Sec. 152. Intelligence Community Scholarship Program.

Subtitle F--Additional Authorities of National Intelligence Authority

Sec. 161. Use of appropriated funds.
Sec. 162. Acquisition and fiscal authorities.
Sec. 163. Personnel matters.
Sec. 164. Ethics matters.

TITLE II--OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Subtitle A--Improvements of Intelligence Activities

Sec. 201. Availability to public of certain intelligence funding
information.
Sec. 202. Merger of Homeland Security Council into National Security
Council.
Sec. 203. Joint Intelligence Community Council.
Sec. 204. Improvement of intelligence capabilities of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Sec. 205. Federal Bureau of Investigation Intelligence Career Service.
Sec. 206. Information sharing.

Subtitle B--Privacy and Civil Liberties

Sec. 211. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Sec. 212. Privacy and civil liberties officers.

Subtitle C--Independence of Intelligence Agencies

Sec. 221. Independence of National Intelligence Director.
Sec. 222. Independence of intelligence.
Sec. 223. Independence of National Counterterrorism Center.
Sec. 224. Access of congressional committees to national intelligence.
Sec. 225. Communications with Congress.

TITLE III--MODIFICATIONS OF LAWS RELATING TO INTELLIGENCE C