[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2190-H2193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the House Resolution 380 and 
rule XXIII, 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. 2703.

                              {time}  1708


                     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. 2703) to combat terrorism, with Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a 
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] and on which the ``ayes'' prevailed by 
voice vote had been postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 104-480.


                amendment no. 7 offered by mr. doolittle

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       Page 133, after line 17, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 678. AUTHORIZING STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICIALS TO ARREST AND DETAIN CERTAIN ILLEGAL 
                   ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, 
     State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to 
     arrest and detain an individual who--
       (1) is an alien illegally present in the United States, and
       (2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United 
     States and deported or left the United States after such 
     conviction,

     but only after the State or local law enforcement officials 
     obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and 
     only for such period of time as may be required for the 
     Service to take the individual into Federal custody for 
     purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United 
     States.
       (b) Cooperation.--The Attorney General shall cooperate with 
     the States to assure that information in the control of the 
     Attorney General, including information in the

[[Page H2191]]

     National Crime Information Center, that would assist State 
     and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties 
     under subsection (a) is made available to such officials.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Doolittle] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
   Mr. Chairman, I held a meeting recently with many of our key law 
enforcement people in my part of northern California to help identify 
reasonable and constitutional ways in which Congress can assist them in 
their fight against violent crime in our communities. Not surprisingly, 
many of them pointed to California's increasing problem with illegal 
immigration as an issue they felt deserved Congress' immediate 
attention.
  I am pleased to see that H.R. 2703 has taken major steps in 
addressing the problem of illegal immigration by specifically focusing 
on the deportation of criminal aliens from our country. However, I feel 
that the bill fails to address a critical problem associated with 
criminal aliens, and that is the fact that almost all of those deported 
eventually find their way back to our country with a potential of 
committing crimes again.
  In California alone, the INS deports thousands of illegal immigrants 
every year who have committed felonies in our State, and every year 
thousands of those same criminal aliens return back again. In fact, the 
California Department of Justice recently reported that 98 percent of 
all immigrants who are deported for committing felonies in California 
will eventually return to the State, and of those, 40 percent will 
commit crimes again.
  Unfortunately, this epidemic is not unique to urban areas, but has 
started to infest rural America as well. Just a few years ago, in the 
small rural community of Lincoln, which is located in my district, an 
illegal alien was found guilty of a driveby shooting, which was the 
first driveby shooting ever in that area. After spending a short time 
in prison, the criminal alien was deported out of the country by the 
INS. Now, despite his deportation, he returned to the area after only 1 
week and, without hesitation, committed another crime.
  With such a threat to our public safety posed by criminal aliens, one 
would think that we would give law enforcement all the tools it needs 
to remove these criminals from our streets, but unfortunately just the 
opposite is true. In fact, the Federal Government has tied the hands of 
our State and local law enforcement officials by actually prohibiting 
them from doing their job of protecting public safety. I was dismayed 
to learn that the current Federal law prohibits State and local law 
enforcement officials from arresting and detaining criminal aliens whom 
they encountered through their routine duties. In fact, a low re-entry 
into the United States by deported aliens was considered a felony. Our 
State and local law enforcement officers are only permitted to release 
the felon and contact the INS with the details of the incident.
   Mr. Chairman, current Federal law in this area places our 
communities at risk and has led me to offer this amendment to H.R. 
2703, an amendment I feel will help put some sense back into our laws 
dealing with the reentry of criminal aliens into this country.
  My amendment would also permit State and local law enforcement 
officials to assist the INS by granting them the authority in their 
normal course of duty to arrest and detain criminal aliens until the 
INS can properly take them into Federal custody.
  With my amendment, law enforcement officials would no longer be 
required to release known dangerous felons back into our communities. 
Instead, this amendment would give those with the responsibility of 
protecting our public safety the ability to take a known criminal alien 
off our streets and put him behind bars.
   Mr. Chairman, you will be interested to know that shortly before my 
district was victimized for the second time by this criminal alien I 
spoke of earlier, an area police officer actually stopped him for a 
traffic violation. With my amendment the police officer would have been 
able to put him in jail for being back in the country illegally until 
the INS could take him into Federal custody. Without it, the officer 
had to release him, and our area became the victim of yet another 
crime.
  My amendment is supported by our local law enforcement because they 
know that fighting illegal immigration can no longer be left solely to 
Federal agencies. Let us untie the hands of those we ask to protect us 
and include my amendment in H.R. 2703 today.
   Mr. Chairman, by way of summary, I would like to allay fears or 
concerns that Members may have about the scope of my amendment.
  First, my amendment does not require anything of State and local law 
enforcement. There is no Federal mandate. The provision I seek to add 
would merely authorize local law enforcement agencies to hold the 
criminal alien until the INS has taken him back into Federal custody.
  Secondly, my amendment is very narrow and only covers situations in 
which the State or local officer encounters criminal aliens within his 
routine duties. In addition, the subject can only be held if the State 
or local police have obtained appropriate confirmation from the INS of 
the illegal status of the individual. Only confirmed criminal aliens 
are at risk of being taken into custody.

  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I think my amendment represents commonsense 
reform. It is narrow in scope but will help mightily people on the 
ground who have the primary responsibility of keeping our children and 
families safe from crime.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Doolittle] that a lot of us who represent border districts 
understand and appreciate the gentleman's effort. A lot of us believe 
that we need to have a process and a system that works in the way that 
the gentleman's amendment attempts to describe it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I noted the gentleman pointed out 
that there are no unfunded Federal mandates. I will tell the gentleman 
that the transferring of any person taken by my local police department 
into custody over to the INS will require some amount of paperwork. It 
may be, I hope, de minimus. I truthfully hope that is the case. But I 
must tell the gentleman that in that process, in and of itself, there 
will be some expense; perhaps not even just to the local department, 
but certainly to the Federal agency called INS as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that there is an understanding, and 
perhaps if this amendment does survive the House and makes it into the 
conference, we would have an opportunity to discuss how it is that we 
will ensure that there will be sufficient funds to pay for the process 
that the gentleman has attempted, I think, to outline and describe in 
his amendment. It is one which I think most Members would be supportive 
of, except for the fact that a lot of us are not quite sure exactly how 
it is going to work in terms of the dollars and cents.
  It is easy for us to say, Here is what we want. Americans do it all 
the time. Yet, they do not say how we are going to pay for it. I am one 
of those who has an interest in the process and want to ensure, as I 
know the gentleman does, the rights of the arrested individual, the 
guarantee and assurance that that is a person who is in violation of an 
immigration law, in addition to the fact that that person may have 
committed an offense within the United States. As the gentleman and I 
know, we think NCIC works pretty well. We on the border think it does 
work fairly well. There are exceptions, but nonetheless we would like 
to see it work.
  Mr. Chairman, as long as the gentleman has a procedure and process 
now being required, as I understand his amendment would require, that 
some action at least would be taken by State and local officials, as 
well as the INS, I have to say, I am convinced there will be some costs 
associated with it.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that I would 
be delighted to work with him on this

[[Page H2192]]

issue. Obviously, the primary responsibility for dealing with the 
control of our borders rests with the Federal Government. Representing 
California, we have had a number of problems getting, really, 
reimbursed for the costs that have been incurred.
  On this amendment I bring today, the intent is to give the option to 
local law enforcement. It really came at the suggestion of one of our 
local police departments within the city of Roseville, which has had 
problems in this area, and the others who were there felt that this 
made perfect sense.
  The gentleman is correct, of course, that if they detain an illegal, 
there will be some additional expense involved with the processing of 
that. They seemed willing, at least at this point, to incur that. But I 
would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to see if there is 
a way we can help the Government to live up to its primary 
responsibility of dealing with the control of our borders
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
would just point out that since, in fact, the ability to deal with some 
of the costs are directly related to the property values of a given 
district or a given area which is represented by a local police 
department, I must tell the gentleman that some communities will be 
unable to come up with those kinds of funds that are necessary, I 
think, for some of these additional costs, unless they are budgeted in 
some way; that there is some provision made at our level to say that we 
intend to hold harmless those departments who are working in that area, 
or at least provide some assistance to them, maybe through the INS.
  That is the kind of thing I would like to work out, and maybe we can 
find a mechanism for funding it. I do not think that people would 
object, as I said earlier, to the thrust of the amendment. I am very 
concerned about its workability. As I say, I welcome the opportunity to 
work with the gentleman.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. As do I, Mr. Chairman. We will proceed ahead.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has expired.
  Does any Member seek time in opposition? Hearing none, the question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle].
  The amendment was agreed to.


  withdrawal of demand for recorded votes on amendments nos. 13 and 15

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the demand for recorded votes on amendments Nos. 13 and 15 be 
withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 13, offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], is agreed to by voice vote.
  Amendment No. 15, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Martini], is agreed to by voice vote.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in House 
Report 104-480.


               amendment no. 16 offered by mr. mc collum

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. McCollum: Add at the end 
     the following:

            TITLE  --FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH TERRORISTS

     SEC.   . FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting before section 2333 the following:

     Sec. 2332c. Financial transactions

       ``(a) Except as provided in regulations made by the 
     Secretary of State, whoever, being a United States person, 
     knowing or having reasonable cause to know that a country is 
     a country that has been designated under section 6(j) of the 
     Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2405) as a country 
     supporting international terrorism; engages in a financial 
     transaction with that country, shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(b) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `financial transaction' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 1956(c)(4); and
       ``(2) the term `United States person' means any United 
     States citizen or national, permanent resident alien, 
     juridical person organized under the laws of the United 
     States, or any person in the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of the chapter of title 18, United States Code, to 
     which the amendment of subsection (a) was made is amended by 
     inserting before the item relating to section 2333 the 
     following new item:

``2332c. Financial transactions.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the centerpiece of the existing bill as far as 
terrorism is concerned is the provision which denies the right of a 
terrorist organization or state to come to the United States and raise 
money to then take back abroad and presumably use it to engage in 
terrorist activities, perhaps in a foreign country, wherever that might 
be, northern Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East, or wherever.
  The converse or the complement to this is equally important. That is 
what my amendment addresses. It addresses the situation where a 
terrorist organization, in an effort to be able to be involved in the 
United States in some terrorist activity, actually has some American 
citizen, a recipient, to bring into this country from a terrorist state 
government a certain amount of money that might be used to further the 
cause of terrorist activities in the United States.
  As opposed to the underlying bill's provisions, the amendment I am 
offering only applies when a terrorist country, one designated in law 
by existing law that we already have, which currently includes Iraq, 
Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea, are the donee countries, 
rather than to the organizations, because that becomes a more 
complicated technical problem.

  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should not permit American 
citizens or American permanent resident aliens to bring money into this 
country under any guise from a country that has been put on the 
terrorist state list. We do not know what that money might be used for, 
but more likely than not, when we think about it, for terrorist 
activities it would be used to buy explosives or to perhaps harbor some 
people who are going to actually commit the technical acts, or maybe to 
buy the taxicab fare or the plane fare, or who knows what. Certainly it 
could be used for those purposes. We have no business having financial 
transactions with terrorist states coming to American citizens.
  There is some existing law, but it is very weak law in this regard. 
The definition in the amendment I am proposing with regard to a 
financial transaction that would be prohibited is the one currently 
used in our money laundering statutes. It is a fairly broad definition, 
defined as ``any movement of funds, use of any monetary instruments or 
financial institution or the transfer of any real property or certain 
types of personal property.''
  The Secretary of State under this amendment could make certain 
exceptions in cases of an inconsequential nature, perhaps something 
connected with the United Nations activity by one of these countries, 
such as postal, telephone, travel services, for specific purposes and 
the like.
  Mr. Chairman, why is this important? It is obviously important. We 
want to protect our citizens from terrorist acts just as much as we 
want other countries to be protected. The bill just is not adequate as 
it is now.
  An example of what might be, and I do not know that it is, a 
situation of this nature came to my attention reading the newspapers 
recently, when Louis Farrakhan went abroad and visited a number of 
terrorist states. It has been reported that in Tripoli during his stop, 
Farrakhan received a pledge of $1 billion from the Libyan Government, 
from Mu'ammar Qadhafi. I do not know whether that is true or not, but 
that is what has been reported.
  I do not believe that the Libyan Government ought to be giving 
Farrakhan or any other United States citizen $1 billion to come to the 
United States. Who knows what that might be used for? I am not trying 
to disparage Mr.

[[Page H2193]]

Farrakhan's purposes, although he is reported as having said during his 
tour, ``You can quote me, God will destroy America by the hands of 
Muslims.''
  I do not know his motives or his intent, and I do not wish to bring 
up his situation to disparage him, because I really do not know. But it 
does call to our attention the fact that there are states like Libya 
and the Sudan and Iran who could provide money to the wrong hands in 
the United States in large quantities, potentially under current law. 
We need to close that loophole. That is what my amendment does. That is 
why I offered it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I support the amendment, Mr. Chairman, for a simple reason. I think 
it is wrong for anyone in the United States, I think it is wrong for 
anyone in the United States to knowingly deal with a country that 
sponsors terrorism. Why should we allow countries that sponsor such 
horrible acts as blowing up our barracks or blasting our airliners out 
of the sky to benefit from dealings with U.S. citizens?
  As I understand the measure, it essentially ties together in one 
place existing prohibitions that depend on a series of executive acts. 
I want to salute the gentleman for doing it. I think it is not 
controversial, and hope we can move the amendment with alacrity.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The amendment was agree to.
  Mr. HYDE. 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. 
Doolittle] having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman 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. 2703) to 
combat terrorism had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________