[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8960-H8970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CUSTOMS BORDER SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3129) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 
2003 for the United States Customs Service for antiterrorism, drug 
interdiction, and other operations, for the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative, for the United States International Trade 
Commission, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3129

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Customs Border Security Act 
     of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                 TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

  Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial 
                               Operations

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations for noncommercial operations, 
              commercial operations, and air and marine interdiction.
Sec. 102. Antiterrorist and illicit narcotics detection equipment for 
              the United States-Mexico border, United States-Canada 
              border, and Florida and the Gulf Coast seaports.
Sec. 103. Compliance with performance plan requirements.

    Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service

Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations for program to prevent child 
              pornography/child sexual exploitation.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 121. Additional Customs Service officers for United States-Canada 
              border.
Sec. 122. Study and report relating to personnel practices of the 
              Customs Service.
Sec. 123. Study and report relating to accounting and auditing 
              procedures of the Customs Service.
Sec. 124. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system; 
              reports.
Sec. 125. Study and report relating to timeliness of prospective 
              rulings.
Sec. 126. Study and report relating to Customs user fees.
Sec. 127. Fees for Customs inspections at express courier facilities.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

Sec. 141. Immunity for United States officials that act in good faith.
Sec. 142. Emergency adjustments to offices, ports of entry, or staffing 
              of the Customs Service.
Sec. 143. Mandatory advanced electronic information for cargo and 
              passengers.
Sec. 144. Border search authority for certain contraband in outbound 
              mail.
Sec. 145. Authorization of appropriations for reestablishment of 
              Customs operations in New York City.

              Subtitle E--Textile Transshipment Provisions

Sec. 151. GAO audit of textile transshipment monitoring by Customs 
              Service.
Sec. 152. Authorization of appropriations for textile transshipment 
              enforcement operations.
Sec. 153. Implementation of the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.

                    TITLE IV--OTHER TRADE PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Increase in aggregate value of articles exempt from duty 
              acquired abroad by United States residents.
Sec. 402. Regulatory audit procedures.

                 TITLE I--UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

  Subtitle A--Drug Enforcement and Other Noncommercial and Commercial 
                               Operations

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL 
                   OPERATIONS, COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, AND AIR AND 
                   MARINE INTERDICTION.

       (a) Noncommercial Operations.--Section 301(b)(1) of the 
     Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 
     U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) $899,121,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and

[[Page H8961]]

       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $922,405,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (b) Commercial Operations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) $1,606,068,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $1,647,662,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (2) Automated commercial environment computer system.--Of 
     the amount made available for each of fiscal years 2002 and 
     2003 under section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Customs Procedural 
     Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(2)(A)), as amended by paragraph (1), $308,000,000 
     shall be available until expended for each such fiscal year 
     for the development, establishment, and implementation of the 
     Automated Commercial Environment computer system.
       (3) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and not later than each subsequent 90-
     day period, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report demonstrating that the development and establishment 
     of the Automated Commercial Environment computer system is 
     being carried out in a cost-effective manner and meets the 
     modernization requirements of title VI of the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
       (c) Air and Marine Interdiction.--Section 301(b)(3) of the 
     Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 
     U.S.C. 2075(b)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) $181,860,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $186,570,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (d) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 
     301(a) of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification 
     Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) By not later than the date on which the President 
     submits to Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government for a fiscal year, the Commissioner of Customs 
     shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year 
     that will be necessary for the operations of the Customs 
     Service as provided for in subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 102. ANTITERRORIST AND ILLICIT NARCOTICS DETECTION 
                   EQUIPMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER, 
                   UNITED STATES-CANADA BORDER, AND FLORIDA AND 
                   THE GULF COAST SEAPORTS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2002.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2002 under section 301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
     $90,244,000 shall be available until expended for acquisition 
     and other expenses associated with implementation and 
     deployment of antiterrorist and illicit narcotics detection 
     equipment along the United States-Mexico border, the United 
     States-Canada border, and Florida and the Gulf Coast 
     seaports, as follows:
       (1) United states-mexico border.--For the United States-
     Mexico border, the following:
       (A) $6,000,000 for 8 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,200,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $13,000,000 for the upgrade of 8 fixed-site truck x-
     rays from the present energy level of 450,000 electron volts 
     to 1,000,000 electron volts (1-MeV).
       (D) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (E) $1,000,000 for 200 portable contraband detectors 
     (busters) to be distributed among ports where the current 
     allocations are inadequate.
       (F) $600,000 for 50 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among all southwest border ports based on traffic 
     volume.
       (G) $500,000 for 25 ultrasonic container inspection units 
     to be distributed among all ports receiving liquid-filled 
     cargo and to ports with a hazardous material inspection 
     facility.
       (H) $2,450,000 for 7 automated targeting systems.
       (I) $360,000 for 30 rapid tire deflator systems to be 
     distributed to those ports where port runners are a threat.
       (J) $480,000 for 20 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (K) $1,000,000 for 20 remote watch surveillance camera 
     systems at ports where there are suspicious activities at 
     loading docks, vehicle queues, secondary inspection lanes, or 
     areas where visual surveillance or observation is obscured.
       (L) $1,254,000 for 57 weigh-in-motion sensors to be 
     distributed among the ports with the greatest volume of 
     outbound traffic.
       (M) $180,000 for 36 AM traffic information radio stations, 
     with 1 station to be located at each border crossing.
       (N) $1,040,000 for 260 inbound vehicle counters to be 
     installed at every inbound vehicle lane.
       (O) $950,000 for 38 spotter camera systems to counter the 
     surveillance of customs inspection activities by persons 
     outside the boundaries of ports where such surveillance 
     activities are occurring.
       (P) $390,000 for 60 inbound commercial truck transponders 
     to be distributed to all ports of entry.
       (Q) $1,600,000 for 40 narcotics vapor and particle 
     detectors to be distributed to each border crossing.
       (R) $400,000 for license plate reader automatic targeting 
     software to be installed at each port to target inbound 
     vehicles.
       (2) United states-canada border.--For the United States-
     Canada border, the following:
       (A) $3,000,000 for 4 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $8,800,000 for 4 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $3,600,000 for 4 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (F) $240,000 for 10 portable Treasury Enforcement 
     Communications Systems (TECS) terminals to be moved among 
     ports as needed.
       (G) $400,000 for 10 narcotics vapor and particle detectors 
     to be distributed to each border crossing based on traffic 
     volume.
       (3) Florida and gulf coast seaports.--For Florida and the 
     Gulf Coast seaports, the following:
       (A) $4,500,000 for 6 Vehicle and Container Inspection 
     Systems (VACIS).
       (B) $11,800,000 for 5 mobile truck x-rays with transmission 
     and backscatter imaging.
       (C) $7,200,000 for 8 1-MeV pallet x-rays.
       (D) $250,000 for 50 portable contraband detectors (busters) 
     to be distributed among ports where the current allocations 
     are inadequate.
       (E) $300,000 for 25 contraband detection kits to be 
     distributed among ports based on traffic volume.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2003.--Of the amounts made available for 
     fiscal year 2003 under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 
     2075(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
     $9,000,000 shall be available until expended for the 
     maintenance and support of the equipment and training of 
     personnel to maintain and support the equipment described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Acquisition of Technologically Superior Equipment; 
     Transfer of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioner of Customs may use 
     amounts made available for fiscal year 2002 under section 
     301(b)(1)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
     Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by section 101(a) of this Act, for the acquisition of 
     equipment other than the equipment described in subsection 
     (a) if such other equipment--
       (A)(i) is technologically superior to the equipment 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) will achieve at least the same results at a cost that 
     is the same or less than the equipment described in 
     subsection (a); or
       (B) can be obtained at a lower cost than the equipment 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Transfer of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this section, the Commissioner of Customs may reallocate 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent of--
       (A) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (R) of subsection (a)(1) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (R);
       (B) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (G) of subsection (a)(2) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (G); and
       (C) the amount specified in any of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) of subsection (a)(3) for equipment specified in 
     any other of such subparagraphs (A) through (E).

     SEC. 103. COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

       As part of the annual performance plan for each of the 
     fiscal years 2002 and 2003 covering each program activity set 
     forth in the budget of the United States Customs Service, as 
     required under section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the Commissioner of Customs shall establish performance 
     goals, performance indicators, and comply with all other 
     requirements contained in paragraphs (1) through (6) of 
     subsection (a) of such section with respect to each of the 
     activities to be carried out pursuant to section 102.

    Subtitle B--Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service

     SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROGRAM TO 
                   PREVENT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY/CHILD SEXUAL 
                   EXPLOITATION.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Customs Service $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 to carry out the program to prevent child 
     pornography/child sexual exploitation established by the 
     Child Cyber-Smuggling Center of the Customs Service.
       (b) Use of Amounts for Child Pornography Cyber Tipline.--Of 
     the amount appropriated under subsection (a), the Customs 
     Service shall provide 3.75 percent of such amount to the 
     National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for the 
     operation of the child pornography cyber tipline of the 
     Center and for increased public awareness of the tipline.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 121. ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS SERVICE OFFICERS FOR UNITED 
                   STATES-CANADA BORDER.

       Of the amount made available for fiscal year 2002 under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 301(b) of the Customs 
     Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C.

[[Page H8962]]

     2075(b)), as amended by section 101 of this Act, $28,300,000 
     shall be available until expended for the Customs Service to 
     hire approximately 285 additional Customs Service officers to 
     address the needs of the offices and ports along the United 
     States-Canada border.

     SEC. 122. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO PERSONNEL PRACTICES OF 
                   THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Study.--The Commissioner of Customs shall conduct a 
     study of current personnel practices of the Customs Service, 
     including an overview of performance standards and the effect 
     and impact of the collective bargaining process on drug 
     interdiction efforts of the Customs Service and a comparison 
     of duty rotation policies of the Customs Service and other 
     Federal agencies that employ similarly-situated personnel.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 123. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO ACCOUNTING AND 
                   AUDITING PROCEDURES OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Commissioner of Customs shall conduct a 
     study of actions by the Customs Service to ensure that 
     appropriate training is being provided to Customs Service 
     personnel who are responsible for financial auditing of 
     importers.
       (2) In conducting the study, the Commissioner--
       (A) shall specifically identify those actions taken to 
     comply with provisions of law that protect the privacy and 
     trade secrets of importers, such as section 552(b) of title 
     5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       (B) shall provide for public notice and comment relating to 
     verification of the actions described in subparagraph (A).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs shall 
     submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 124. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING 
                   SYSTEM; REPORTS.

       (a) Establishment and Implementation.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2003, the 
     Commissioner of Customs shall, in accordance with the audit 
     of the Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial 
     statements (as contained in the report of the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on 
     February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting 
     system for expenses incurred in both commercial and 
     noncommercial operations of the Customs Service.
       (2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system 
     described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an 
     identification of expenses based on the type of operation, 
     the port at which the operation took place, the amount of 
     time spent on the operation by personnel of the Customs 
     Service, and an identification of expenses based on any other 
     appropriate classification necessary to provide for an 
     accurate and complete accounting of the expenses.
       (b) Reports.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and ending on the date on which the cost accounting 
     system described in subsection (a) is fully implemented, the 
     Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and submit to Congress 
     on a quarterly basis a report on the progress of implementing 
     the cost accounting system pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 125. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO TIMELINESS OF 
                   PROSPECTIVE RULINGS.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the extent to which the Office of Regulations and Rulings 
     of the Customs Service has made improvements to decrease the 
     amount of time to issue prospective rulings from the date on 
     which a request for the ruling is received by the Customs 
     Service.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``prospective 
     ruling'' means a ruling that is requested by an importer on 
     goods that are proposed to be imported into the United States 
     and that relates to the proper classification, valuation, or 
     marking of such goods.

     SEC. 126. STUDY AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the extent to which the amount of each customs user fee 
     imposed under section 13031(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(a)) is 
     commensurate with the level of services provided by the 
     Customs Service relating to the fee so imposed.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report in classified form containing--
       (1) the results of the study conducted under subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) recommendations for the appropriate amount of the 
     customs user fees if such results indicate that the fees are 
     not commensurate with the level of services provided by the 
     Customs Service.

     SEC. 127. FEES FOR CUSTOMS INSPECTIONS AT EXPRESS COURIER 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Customs User Fees.--Section 13031 of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Subsection (a) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (11), respectively;
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) For the processing of merchandise that is informally 
     entered or released at a centralized hub facility or an 
     express consignment carrier facility (other than shipments 
     valued at $200 or less, which shall not be subject to any fee 
     under this subsection), $5.50''; and
       (C) in the last sentence of paragraph (11), as so 
     redesignated, by striking ``subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C),'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) and (B), see 
     paragraph (7), and at facilities referred to in subparagraph 
     (C),''.
       (2) Subsection (b) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(8)'' and inserting 
     ``(9)'';
       (B) in paragraph (6)--
       (i) by striking ``(a)(8)'' and inserting ``(a)(9)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(8)'' and inserting ``(9)'';
       (C) in paragraph (8)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``(a)(9)'' and 
     inserting ``(a)(10)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E), by striking 
     ``(9) or (10)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(10) or 
     (11)''; and
       (D) in paragraph (9)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``a centralized hub facility, an express 
     consignment carrier facility, or'';
       (ii) by striking clause (ii) of subparagraph (A);
       (iii) in clause (i) of subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking--

       ``(i) In the case of a small airport or other facility--'';

       (II) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and aligning the text of those 
     clauses with clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (8)(E); and
       (III) in clause (ii), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``(a)(10) for such fiscal year, in an amount equal to the 
     reimbursement under subclause (I)'' and inserting ``(a)(11) 
     for such fiscal year, in an amount equal to the reimbursement 
     under clause (i)''; and

       (iv) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `small 
     airport or other facility' means any airport or facility to 
     which section 236 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 
     applies, if more than 25,000 informal entries were cleared 
     through such airport or facility during the preceding fiscal 
     year.''; and
       (E) in paragraphs (10) and (11), by striking ``(9) or 
     (10)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(10) or (11)''.
       (3) Subsection (c) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) The terms `centralized hub facility' and 'express 
     consignment carrier facility' mean a separate or shared 
     specialized facility approved by a port director of the 
     Customs Service for examination and release of imported 
     merchandise carried by an express consignment carrier. Entry 
     filing is also permitted at a centralized hub facility.''.
       (4) Subsection (d)(4) is amended by striking ``(a)(7)'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``(a)(8)''.
       (5) Subsection (e) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) Notwithstanding section 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     or any other provision of law, all services rendered by the 
     United States Customs Service at a centralized hub facility 
     or an express consignment carrier facility relating to the 
     inspection or release of merchandise from such facility, 
     either inbound or upon arrival from another country or 
     outbound when departing to another country (including, but 
     not limited to, normal and overtime services) shall be 
     adequately provided when needed, at no cost to such facility 
     (other than the fees imposed under subsection (a) of this 
     section).''.
       (6) Subsection (f)(3)(A) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``(9) 
     or (10)'' and inserting ``(10) or (11)'';
       (B) in clause (i)--
       (i) in subclause (IV), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subclause (V), by adding ``and'' after ``1993,''; 
     and
       (iii) by inserting after subclause (V) the following:
       ``(VI) providing the services described in subsection 
     (e)(7) at centralized hub facilities and express consignment 
     carrier facilities,''; and
       (C) in clause (ii), by striking ``(8)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(9)''.
       (7) Subsection (f)(6) is amended by striking ``(9) and 
     (10)'' and inserting ``(10) and (11)''.
       (b) Additional Conforming Amendment.--Section 301(b)(2)(B) 
     of the Customs Procedural Reform and Simplification Act of 
     1978

[[Page H8963]]

     (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``(9) and 
     (10)'' and inserting ``(10) and (11)''.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

     SEC. 141. IMMUNITY FOR UNITED STATES OFFICIALS THAT ACT IN 
                   GOOD FAITH.

       (a) Immunity.--Section 3061 of the Revised Statutes (19 
     U.S.C. 482) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any of the officers'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Any of the officers''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Any officer or employee of the United States 
     conducting a search of a person pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of 
     such search if the officer or employee performed the search 
     in good faith.''.
       (b) Requirement To Post Policy and Procedures for Searches 
     of Passengers.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the Customs 
     Service shall ensure that at each Customs border facility 
     appropriate notice is posted that provides a summary of the 
     policy and procedures of the Customs Service for searching 
     passengers, including a statement of the policy relating to 
     the prohibition on the conduct of profiling of passengers 
     based on gender, race, color, religion, or ethnic background.

     SEC. 142. EMERGENCY ADJUSTMENTS TO OFFICES, PORTS OF ENTRY, 
                   OR STAFFING OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       Section 318 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1318) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever the President'' and inserting 
     ``(a) Whenever the President''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, when necessary to respond to a 
     national emergency declared under the National Emergencies 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or to a specific threat to human 
     life or national interests, is authorized to take the 
     following actions on a temporary basis:
       ``(A) Eliminate, consolidate, or relocate any office or 
     port of entry of the Customs Service.
       ``(B) Modify hours of service, alter services rendered at 
     any location, or reduce the number of employees at any 
     location.
       ``(C) Take any other action that may be necessary to 
     directly respond to the national emergency or specific 
     threat.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Commissioner of Customs, when necessary to respond to a 
     specific threat to human life or national interests, is 
     authorized to close temporarily any Customs office or port of 
     entry or take any other lesser action that may be necessary 
     to respond to the specific threat.
       ``(3) The Secretary of the Treasury or the Commissioner of 
     Customs, as the case may be, shall notify the Committee on 
     Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate not later than 72 hours 
     after taking any action under paragraph (1) or (2).''.

     SEC. 143. MANDATORY ADVANCED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION FOR CARGO 
                   AND PASSENGERS.

       (a) Cargo Information.--
       (1) In general.--Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``Any manifest'' and 
     inserting ``(1) Any manifest''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) In addition to any other requirement under this 
     section, for each land, air, or vessel carrier required to 
     make entry under the customs laws of the United States, the 
     pilot, the master, operator, or owner of such carrier (or the 
     authorized agent of such operator or owner) shall provide by 
     electronic transmission cargo manifest information in advance 
     of such entry in such manner, time, and form as prescribed 
     under regulations by the Secretary. The Secretary may exclude 
     any class of land, air, or vessel carrier for which the 
     Secretary concludes the requirements of this subparagraph are 
     not necessary.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of 
     section 431(d)(1) of such Act are each amended by inserting 
     before the semicolon ``or subsection (b)(2)''.
       (b) Passenger Information.--Part II of title IV of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 431 the following:

     ``SEC. 432. PASSENGER AND CREW INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR LAND, 
                   AIR, OR VESSEL CARRIERS.

       ``(a) In General.--For every person arriving or departing 
     on a land, air, or vessel carrier required to make entry or 
     obtain clearance under the customs laws of the United States, 
     the pilot, the master, operator, or owner of such carrier (or 
     the authorized agent of such operator or owner) shall provide 
     by electronic transmission information described in 
     subsection (b) in advance of such entry or clearance in such 
     manner, time, and form as prescribed under regulations by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Information Described.--The information described in 
     this subsection shall include for each person described in 
     subsection (a), if applicable, the person's--
       ``(1) full name;
       ``(2) date of birth and citizenship;
       ``(3) gender;
       ``(4) passport number and country of issuance;
       ``(5) United States visa number or resident alien card 
     number;
       ``(6) passenger name record; and
       ``(7) such additional information that the Secretary, by 
     regulation, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure 
     aviation and maritime safety pursuant to the laws enforced or 
     administered by the Customs Service.''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1401) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) The term `land, air, or vessel carrier' means a land, 
     air, or vessel carrier, as the case may be, that transports 
     goods or passengers for payment or other consideration, 
     including money or services rendered.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect beginning 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 144. BORDER SEARCH AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN CONTRABAND IN 
                   OUTBOUND MAIL.

       The Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting after 
     section 582 the following:

     ``SEC. 583. EXAMINATION OF OUTBOUND MAIL.

       ``(a) Examination.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of ensuring compliance with 
     the Customs laws of the United States and other laws enforced 
     by the Customs Service, including the provisions of law 
     described in paragraph (2), a Customs officer may, subject to 
     the provisions of this section, stop and search at the 
     border, without a search warrant, mail of domestic origin 
     transmitted for export by the United States Postal Service 
     and foreign mail transiting the United States that is being 
     imported or exported by the United States Postal Service.
       ``(2) Provisions of law described.--The provisions of law 
     described in this paragraph are the following:
       ``(A) Section 5316 of title 31, United States Code 
     (relating to reports on exporting and importing monetary 
     instruments).
       ``(B) Sections 1461, 1463, 1465, and 1466 and chapter 110 
     of title 18, United States Code (relating to obscenity and 
     child pornography).
       ``(C) Section 1003 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
     Export Act (21 U.S.C. 953; relating to exportation of 
     controlled substances).
       ``(D) The Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 
     2401 et seq.).
       ``(E) Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2778).
       ``(F) The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       ``(b) Search of Mail Not Sealed Against Inspection and 
     Other Mail.--Mail not sealed against inspection under the 
     postal laws and regulations of the United States, mail which 
     bears a customs declaration, and mail with respect to which 
     the sender or addressee has consented in writing to search, 
     may be searched by a Customs officer.
       ``(c) Search of Mail Sealed Against Inspection.--(1) Mail 
     sealed against inspection under the postal laws and 
     regulations of the United States may be searched by a Customs 
     officer, subject to paragraph (2), upon reasonable cause to 
     suspect that such mail contains one or more of the following:
       ``(A) Monetary instruments, as defined in section 1956 of 
     title 18, United States Code.
       ``(B) A weapon of mass destruction, as defined in section 
     2332a(b) of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(C) A drug or other substance listed in schedule I, II, 
     III, or IV in section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 812).
       ``(D) National defense and related information transmitted 
     in violation of any of sections 793 through 798 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       ``(E) Merchandise mailed in violation of section 1715 or 
     1716 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(F) Merchandise mailed in violation of any provision of 
     chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or chapter 110 (relating 
     to sexual exploitation and other abuse of children) of title 
     18, United States Code.
       ``(G) Merchandise mailed in violation of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.).
       ``(H) Merchandise mailed in violation of section 38 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
       ``(I) Merchandise mailed in violation of the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       ``(J) Merchandise mailed in violation of the Trading with 
     the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. app. 1 et seq.).
       ``(K) Merchandise subject to any other law enforced by the 
     Customs Service.
       ``(2) No person acting under authority of paragraph (1) 
     shall read, or authorize any other person to read, any 
     correspondence contained in mail sealed against inspection 
     unless prior to so reading--
       ``(A) a search warrant has been issued pursuant to Rule 41, 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
       ``(B) the sender or addressee has given written 
     authorization for such reading.''.

     SEC. 145. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REESTABLISHMENT 
                   OF CUSTOMS OPERATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     the reestablishment of operations of the Customs Service in 
     New York, New York, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2002.
       (2) Operations described.--The operations referred to in 
     paragraph (1) include, but are not limited to, the following:
       (A) Operations relating to the Port Director of New York 
     City, the New York Customs

[[Page H8964]]

     Management Center (including the Director of Field 
     Operations), and the Special Agent-In-Charge for New York.
       (B) Commercial operations, including textile enforcement 
     operations and salaries and expenses of--
       (i) trade specialists who determine the origin and value of 
     merchandise;
       (ii) analysts who monitor the entry data into the United 
     States of textiles and textile products; and
       (iii) Customs officials who work with foreign governments 
     to examine textile makers and verify entry information.
       (b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.

              Subtitle E--Textile Transshipment Provisions

     SEC. 151. GAO AUDIT OF TEXTILE TRANSSHIPMENT MONITORING BY 
                   CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) GAO Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct an audit of the system established and 
     carried out by the Customs Service to monitor textile 
     transshipment.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and Committee on Finance of the Senate a 
     report that contains the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), including recommendations for improvements to 
     the transshipment monitoring system if applicable.
       (c) Transshipment Described.--Transshipment within the 
     meaning of this section has occurred when preferential 
     treatment under any provision of law has been claimed for a 
     textile or apparel article on the basis of material false 
     information concerning the country of origin, manufacture, 
     processing, or assembly of the article or any of its 
     components. For purposes of the preceding sentence, false 
     information is material if disclosure of the true information 
     would mean or would have meant that the article is or was 
     ineligible for preferential treatment under the provision of 
     law in question.

     SEC. 152. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR TEXTILE 
                   TRANSSHIPMENT ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated for 
     textile transshipment enforcement operations of the Customs 
     Service $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a), the 
     following amounts are authorized to be made available for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Import specialists.--$1,463,000 for 21 Customs import 
     specialists to be assigned to selected ports for 
     documentation review to support detentions and exclusions and 
     1 additional Customs import specialist assigned to the 
     Customs headquarters textile program to administer the 
     program and provide oversight.
       (2) Inspectors.--$652,080 for 10 Customs inspectors to be 
     assigned to selected ports to examine targeted high-risk 
     shipments.
       (3) Investigators.--(A) $1,165,380 for 10 investigators to 
     be assigned to selected ports to investigate instances of 
     smuggling, quota and trade agreement circumvention, and use 
     of counterfeit visas to enter inadmissible goods.
       (B) $149,603 for 1 investigator to be assigned to Customs 
     headquarters textile program to coordinate and ensure 
     implementation of textile production verification team 
     results from an investigation perspective.
       (4) International trade specialists.--$226,500 for 3 
     international trade specialists to be assigned to Customs 
     headquarters to be dedicated to illegal textile transshipment 
     policy issues and other free trade agreement enforcement 
     issues.
       (5) Permanent import specialists for hong kong.--$500,000 
     for 2 permanent import specialist positions and $500,000 for 
     2 investigators to be assigned to Hong Kong to work with Hong 
     Kong and other government authorities in Southeast Asia to 
     assist such authorities pursue proactive enforcement of 
     bilateral trade agreements.
       (6) Various permanent trade positions.--$3,500,000 for the 
     following:
       (A) 2 permanent positions to be assigned to the Customs 
     attache office in Central America to address trade 
     enforcement issues for that region.
       (B) 2 permanent positions to be assigned to the Customs 
     attache office in South Africa to address trade enforcement 
     issues pursuant to the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
     (title I of Public Law 106-200).
       (C) 4 permanent positions to be assigned to the Customs 
     attache office in Mexico to address the threat of illegal 
     textile transshipment through Mexico and other related issues 
     under the North American Free Trade Agreement Act.
       (D) 2 permanent positions to be assigned to the Customs 
     attache office in Seoul, South Korea, to address the trade 
     issues in the geographic region.
       (E) 2 permanent positions to be assigned to the proposed 
     Customs attache office in New Delhi, India, to address the 
     threat of illegal textile transshipment and other trade 
     enforcement issues.
       (F) 2 permanent positions to be assigned to the Customs 
     attache office in Rome, Italy, to address trade enforcement 
     issues in the geographic region, including issues under free 
     trade agreements with Jordan and Israel.
       (7) Attorneys.--$179,886 for 2 attorneys for the Office of 
     the Chief Counsel of the Customs Service to pursue cases 
     regarding illegal textile transshipment.
       (8) Auditors.--$510,000 for 6 Customs auditors to perform 
     internal control reviews and document and record reviews of 
     suspect importers.
       (9) Additional travel funds.--$250,000 for deployment of 
     additional textile production verification teams to sub-
     Saharan Africa.
       (10) Training.--(A) $75,000 for training of Customs 
     personnel.
       (B) $200,000 for training for foreign counterparts in risk 
     management analytical techniques and for teaching factory 
     inspection techniques, model law Development, and enforcement 
     techniques.
       (11) Outreach.--$60,000 for outreach efforts to United 
     States importers.

     SEC. 153. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
                   OPPORTUNITY ACT.

       Of the amount made available for fiscal year 2002 under 
     section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Customs Procedural Reform and 
     Simplification Act of 1978 (19 U.S.C. 2075(b)(2)(A)), as 
     amended by section 101(b)(1) of this Act, $1,317,000 shall be 
     available until expended for the Customs Service to provide 
     technical assistance to help sub-Saharan Africa countries 
     develop and implement effective visa and anti-transshipment 
     systems as required by the African Growth and Opportunity Act 
     (title I of Public Law 106-200), as follows:
       (1) Travel funds.--$600,000 for import specialists, special 
     agents, and other qualified Customs personnel to travel to 
     sub-Saharan Africa countries to provide technical assistance 
     in developing and implementing effective visa and anti-
     transshipment systems.
       (2) Import specialists.--$266,000 for 4 import specialists 
     to be assigned to Customs headquarters to be dedicated to 
     providing technical assistance to sub-Saharan African 
     countries for developing and implementing effective visa and 
     anti-transshipment systems.
       (3) Data reconciliation analysts.--$151,000 for 2 data 
     reconciliation analysts to review apparel shipments.
       (4) Special agents.--$300,000 for 2 special agents to be 
     assigned to Customs headquarters to be available to provide 
     technical assistance to sub-Saharan African countries in the 
     performance of investigations and other enforcement 
     initiatives.

       TITLE II--OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 141(g)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``not 
     to exceed'';
       (B) in clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (C) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (B) by striking clause (ii); and
       (C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii).
       (b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 
     141(g) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(g)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) By not later than the date on which the President 
     submits to Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government for a fiscal year, the United States Trade 
     Representative shall submit to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Finance of the Senate the projected amount of funds for the 
     succeeding fiscal year that will be necessary for the Office 
     to carry out its functions.''.
       (c) Additional Staff for Office of Assistant U.S. Trade 
     Representative for Congressional Affairs.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2002 for the 
     salaries and expenses of two additional legislative 
     specialist employee positions within the Office of the 
     Assistant United States Trade Representative for 
     Congressional Affairs.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations under paragraph (1) are 
     authorized to remain available until expended.

        TITLE III--UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

     SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 330(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 
     1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) to read as follows:
       ``(i) $51,400,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (2) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $53,400,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (b) Submission of Out-Year Budget Projections.--Section 
     330(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(e)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) By not later than the date on which the President 
     submits to Congress the budget of the United States 
     Government for a fiscal year, the Commission shall submit to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     the projected amount of funds for the succeeding fiscal year 
     that will be necessary for the Commission to carry out its 
     functions.''.

[[Page H8965]]

                    TITLE IV--OTHER TRADE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE VALUE OF ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM 
                   DUTY ACQUIRED ABROAD BY UNITED STATES 
                   RESIDENTS.

       (a) In General.--Subheading 9804.00.65 of the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended in the 
     article description column by striking ``$400'' and inserting 
     ``$800''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 402. REGULATORY AUDIT PROCEDURES.

       Section 509(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1509(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6)(A) If during the course of any audit concluded under 
     this subsection, the Customs Service identifies overpayments 
     of duties or fees or over-declarations of quantities or 
     values that are within the time period and scope of the audit 
     that the Customs Service has defined, then in calculating the 
     loss of revenue or monetary penalties under section 592, the 
     Customs Service shall treat the overpayments or over-
     declarations on finally liquidated entries as an offset to 
     any underpayments or underdeclarations also identified on 
     finally liquidated entries if such overpayments or over-
     declarations were not made by the person being audited for 
     the purpose of violating any provision of law.
       ``(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to 
     authorize a refund not otherwise authorized under section 
     520.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I indicated on the previous legislation in front of us, I do ask 
that we suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3129, as amended, as well.
  The amendment in this instance is a deletion rather than an addition. 
Although in committee we had a full and, I think, useful discussion 
about a number of concerns dealing with Customs and the way in which 
Customs deals with our border security and the way in which they 
enforce the law, one provision which caused some consternation and 
which has been in front of us for several years is the way in which 
Customs officials in particular areas are compensated.
  It is a difficult job, because many of the airports in Customs 
locations are open 24 hours a day. People are coming in at all hours of 
the morning and night as well as during the day, and so it is a 
difficult labor situation. And in an attempt to try to figure out how 
to have an equitable pay structure for those who might be working 
shifts that most of us would be more familiar with, called graveyard 
shifts or night shifts, there does need to be a bit of an incentive in 
terms of offering more than the normal compensation during normal 
working hours.
  The difficulty is that in certain areas there are individuals who are 
receiving nighttime pay, or overtime pay, that is used normally to 
compensate for the unusual hours they are working, and they are working 
in the middle of the day. This anomaly we attempt to correct in this 
legislation.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle were strongly objective to 
removing night pay for people who are at work and if they look out the 
window the sun is shining. To make sure that we move forward with this 
whole area of trade and Customs, this legislation was placed on the 
suspension calendar. As a gesture which may or may not be received in 
the spirit in which it is delivered, we requested that we delete that 
portion of the Customs reauthorization dealing with the wage dispute.
  The rest of the bill, I believe, is completely meritorious and 
deserves in its entirety to be passed, without objection, and I would 
urge that we do so on the suspension calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 3129.
  This is another bill that is put out here to confuse people, to throw 
sand in the eyes of Members of Congress. It was presented to the 
committee as a pay bill for Customs people. We voted on it there. And 
between the committee and coming to the floor, they suddenly took that 
all out and put a study in. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, we 
appreciate that. The other provisions were no good.
  But what is left is not good either, because it should have gone to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The sections which pertain to immunity 
of Customs agents and allowing the unwarranted search of outgoing U.S. 
mail should have been talked about by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
It seems to me that the Ways and Means was used as a way to go around 
the Committee on the Judiciary, rather than having them consider what 
needs to be done.
  Now, our Customs agents are good and sincere people who have grave 
responsibilities. Unfortunately, there have been abuses of the 
authority that Customs agents have. A March 2000 General Accounting 
Office report found that while black female citizens were nine times 
more likely than white female citizens to be subject to x-ray searches 
by the Customs Service, these black women were less than half as likely 
to be found carrying contraband as white women.
  Section 141 of the bill would exempt the Customs officer from 
liability for engaging in illegal body cavity search and from liability 
for illegal searches, provided the officer acted in good faith. Now, 
there is no reason put forward why we should change the standard set by 
the Supreme Court that the reasonableness of an officer's behavior is 
the proper test of liability. In the aftermath of the GAO study, many 
changes were instituted by Customs, and I believe that we should not 
change this in this way.
  This is also not the time to give them a new standard about looking 
at mail. We prevent mail from coming in without a search because we are 
protecting ourselves. When it is going out, there is no justification 
given for why we are doing that. I think that that is another change, a 
power grab by the Justice Department, done through the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  And without anybody talking about it, they then added $9 billion to 
Customs for agents to deal with transshipment. Now, my colleagues, that 
is put in the bill for one reason and one reason only: To get textile 
people to say they are going to keep the textiles out of our country, 
we have good protectionists, so I can vote for trade promotion 
authority. It is simply a sop to Members.
  Now, if Members think this is going to go over to the Senate and 
pass, remember, this has to go through the Senate. Passing in the House 
is not enough. This is a sop that will not work. I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Trade.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, 
would authorize the budget for the U.S. Customs Service, International 
Trade Commission, and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. It also 
includes a number of critical new tools for fighting terrorism, drugs, 
and child pornography. The legislation will help Customs close a gap in 
our border that lets illegal money be taken out of the country. This 
legislation will also significantly help Customs' ability to stop the 
flow of illegal drugs from crossing our borders and getting into our 
children's hands.
  The administration participated in drafting and working through 
several measures in this bill. We have a provision to require advanced 
electronic manifesting on passengers and cargo so that the Customs 
Service can have advanced notice of who is on planes and what is on 
ships about to land on American soil.
  We also have a provision to give our Customs inspectors some 
protection against frivolous lawsuits since now, more than ever, they 
will be scrutinizing and watching people who come into the country, 
knowing full well that the next terrorist may be stepping off the plane 
at any time. Inspectors acting in good faith should not have to think 
twice about being subject to personal civil lawsuits. So we are 
proposing that they have immunity, but only for those who act in good 
faith, not for inspectors who may wrongly use race, ethnicity or gender 
to profile passengers.
  The administration also requested that Customs be able to search 
outgoing mail because of the fact that the

[[Page H8966]]

 U.S. mail is used to transmit laundered money out of the country. I 
want to assure Members that we looked carefully at the privacy issues 
involved here and believe we adequately address them in this 
legislation. People fear that Customs may be reading our mail, but our 
bill preserves our cherished fourth amendment right against unwarranted 
search by requiring that no letter may be read by Customs officers 
unless a valid warrant is obtained. Remember, money from illegal 
activities is what leads us to terrorists and drug smugglers. We must 
preserve our privacy while giving Customs authority to root out these 
illegal activities.
  We have increased funding to reestablish the New York Customs offices 
and an additional increase in funding to upgrade our textile 
transshipment monitoring and enforcement operations. Also, H.R. 3129 
adds $10 million for the Customs Cyber-smuggling Center. With the 
explosion of the Internet, our children have become vulnerable to 
online predators. We need to protect them, and this legislation will 
help Customs combat this vile behavior.
  This legislation also contains authorization for funding for Customs' 
new automation, the automated commercial environment. In 1998, Customs 
processed 19.7 million entries. This volume is expected to double by 
2005. The current automation system is on the brink of continual 
brownout and possibly shutdowns. If this happens, it will cost American 
taxpayers millions of dollars.
  I urge all of my colleagues who are serious about stopping terrorism, 
drugs, and online child pornography, while keeping our trade flowing, 
to support this bill.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3129. This bill 
threatens to violate the civil rights of international travelers. The 
Customs Service's poor record of racially profiling passengers has been 
well documented. While I appreciate the attempts that they have made to 
address the problem, now is not the time to grant immunity to Customs 
officers conducting personal searches.
  For more than 2 years, I have been examining allegations of racial 
profiling by Customs inspectors throughout the country, and 
mistreatment of international travelers, especially African Americans 
and Hispanics, in the Customs Service personal search process. I will 
not support any legislation that will grant Customs officers immunity 
before we have seen significant improvement in their record on racial 
profiling.
  As public officials, Customs agents already have qualified immunity 
which is more than adequate to protect them if acting within the scope 
of their official authority. Civil lawsuits against government 
officials and agents are an important deterrent to racial profiling and 
unconstitutional and unlawful searches. Without the possibility of a 
lawsuit, individuals who have been treated in an unconstitutional 
manner by a government agency will have no redress, and the government 
agents will have less incentive to comply with the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to protect the basic civil 
rights and civil liberties of international travelers and oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot in a rush after September 11: 
Questioning the attorney's right to talk to his client without being 
listened to; military trials where the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Defense will certify someone was a foreign terrorist and 
deny them a fair trial, whether they happen to be, in fact, a guilty 
terrorist or not. The individual might be an innocent citizen, but is 
still stuck with this system because the Attorney General has accused 
the individual.
  We passed the airline security bill which included provisions which 
significantly reduced the rights of victims to be compensated for their 
injuries and without consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary 
which has jurisdiction over this, and now we are asked to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill which includes provisions which reduce the rights 
of victims of unconstitutional, unreasonable searches by government 
officials, searches which could include strip searches and so-called 
cavity searches. Many of these searches have been found to be conducted 
pursuant to racial profiling. They have only been stopped by lawsuits, 
and here we have bill that will throw some of these people out of court 
and make it less likely that these unconstitutional searches will be 
stopped.
  The Supreme Court has held that the objective reasonableness of the 
official's behavior ought to be the standard, not the so-called good 
faith standard that is in this bill as the standard for liability. If 
we are going to change the standard, we ought to do it through the 
regular legislative process. Let the Committee on the Judiciary have 
hearings so we can consider whether a change needs to take place.
  Rather, we are here on a motion to suspend the rules and just pass 
the bill. I would hope that we would not proceed with this standard, 
with this procedure, where we cannot have amendments or hearings, we 
have to take it up or down. This is too serious an issue to consider 
this way. I urge Members to defeat the motion to suspend the rules.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation. We did have hearings on this bill, I would note, and 
I am very proud to support it.
  Furthermore, it is an urgent matter that we pass this at this time. 
First of all, it provides clear authority for Customs to get passenger 
lists from other countries. That authority is not clear in our Customs 
law. If we want Customs to provide us with the protection that they 
need to, we need to enable them to have advanced electronic information 
about passengers, cargo, carrier crew lists, and manifests.
  This is very important in terms of the immediate challenge of 
protecting ourselves more effectively against terrorism. This is just 
as important as the airport safety bill. In addition to providing 
access to information about passengers and cargo, it allows clear 
authority to search outbound mail. Customs has authority to search 
inbound mail, but it is in the outbound mail that the cash roars out of 
America, laundered clean for terrorist activities and illegal drug 
smuggling.
  Further, $10 million is going to go to something that I have been 
fighting for for 3 years and has had lots of hearings. Our children are 
not threatened by sexual exploitation and attack any more by people 
lurking in the school yards of America. They are now on the computers. 
They are in chat rooms. Do Members know where most of the child 
pornography comes from and how it comes into America? It flows in 
through cyberspace. Who are the people who have developed the most 
effective means of stopping child pornography and interrupting those 
conversations in the chat room through which adults are gaining access 
to children and luring them into dangerous relationships, it is the 
Customs folks.
  I have talked to them extensively in my district. This is the 
ammunition that they need to beef up the resources and expand the 
expertise. They are really now skilled at this, being able to follow 
these chat room conversations, spot those individuals who are posing as 
young people, but who are really out to attract young people into 
meeting them here or there for sexual exploitation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate that we have not had more young 
children murdered. We have had children met in parking lots as a result 
of contacts made through international cyberspace connections.
  And now the business that is developing in tourism, foreign companies 
luring, over our computers, adults to join trips whose goal it is to 
offer young children around the world to American tourists. Mr. 
Speaker, it is terrible. It is horrible, and that is a piece of this 
legislation that is urgently needed.
  Mr. Speaker, do not underestimate the importance and the relevance of

[[Page H8967]]

this to the very situation we face right now. Customs lost textile 
monitoring and enforcement infrastructure from the September 11 attack, 
and this allows the reestablishment of those offices and provides the 
resources so that the textile clearinghouse and commercial operations 
can be reestablished.
  This is a very, very important bill. It is not sexy. There is not a 
lot of interest in Customs in Congress. There never has been. But the 
authorities that we are granting in this bill, the resources that we 
are providing, the border protection equipment to fight terrorism and 
illegal drugs, is very important. Again, do not let this be mired down 
or defeated by all of the other cross-currents that are swirling in 
this body and between the two Houses.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman's program has been funded for 3 years 
without authorization. We do not need this bill for that purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to know that the Committee on the Judiciary 
made a great pitch to increase the funding for Customs. It was blocked 
by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means sitting there. That 
is why we could not do it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Customs has no better friend than myself. 
When I was prosecuting narcotics cases, they were just as dedicated 
then in trying to keep those poisons from crossing our borders as they 
are today.
  But it bothers me that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) in calling the bill not sexy would spend most of her time 
talking about preventing child pornography when the last several 
speakers on our side were talking about civil liberties. As a matter of 
fact, I have not heard anyone on the other side deal with this.
  Mr. Speaker, we can have a good cause and good bill, fight terrorism, 
but if we ever lose sight of the constitutional rights of people to be 
protected, their civil rights, then we have lost this battle against 
terrorism. We have provisions here that say in this bill on the 
suspension calendar without the benefit of the thinking of the people 
on the Committee on the Judiciary that we are going to give some type 
of immunity, immunity to people who violate the rights of other people.
  The Customs Service did not support these changes. The Department of 
Justice did not ask for these changes. The Department of Treasury did 
not ask for these changes, and these changes can violate the very 
structure of the constitutional rights of our people. So hey, put on 
the record, Democrats are against child pornography; but let us get on 
with answering some of the serious constitutional questions concerning 
civil liberties that our side has raised.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the immunity section was 
specifically asked for by Customs, and responds to their very deep-
seated need for protection from suit for actions that they as officers 
must take. After all, they do not know who is walking up to them and 
must make difficult instant judgments about their need to search and/or 
restraint.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would not put the valuable reputation of 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut on the line for that statement because 
our side is convinced that Customs did not ask for it and do not 
support it. The gentlewoman knows how much I respect her.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
making that comment. I am putting on the record that our staff says 
Customs asked for this, so at least the public listening to this debate 
and the Members ought to know that our staff believes Customs asked for 
this very language and needs it.
  Mr. RANGEL. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I am certain 
before the debate is over, staff will produce a document from Customs 
stating that. If not, we have a problem.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to clarify what the Department of Justice wants.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what Department of Justice 
wants; and I can tell the gentleman, I do not care what Customs wants. 
Whether they asked for it or not, they should not get it. There are no 
documents to prove that they asked for it; Members can be the jury.
  The question that the gentleman from New York raises is whether we 
are going to sanctioning in this quickie here, a racial profiling 
exemption that goes back, the qualified exemption that Customs already 
enjoys.
  What are we doing here? We already have a dozen cases that have come 
out of court that have said that Customs is protected and has a 
qualified exemption from even the wrongdoing of the agents of Customs.

                              {time}  1100

  Now, and I guess this is in the quiet of the daytime, we are now 
saying let us exempt the whole agency, not just the individual agents 
that conduct these violations. Then I am hearing people talk about we 
need more money. And it is terrible what is happening to kids and 
ladies and girls, but the chairman is the one that blocked us adding 
the money. He is sitting here quietly reserving his time.
  This is a wonderful practice, but what has it got to do with the 
Customs Border Security Act? Here is a bill that is going to bite the 
dust because we will not level about what we are doing here. So I 
cannot authorize sanctioning agencies to have exclusive remedy 
exemption, when they already have partial exemption.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have had a very good bill that would have 
received a very large vote in support. The majority did the right thing 
by removing a provision in from the bill that would have unfairly cut 
the pay of our Customs officials, our front line at our borders to 
prevent terrorist activity from entering into our country. It has 
provisions which provide for automation for a computer system which is 
outdated and which must be replaced so we can track what comes into 
this country. But yet this bill instead chose to sacrifice privacy 
under the guise of security.
  Regarding this immunity that the Customs Service so-called requested, 
first in committee, they could not explain why they needed it. But, 
more importantly, we know that the Customs Service has a terrible 
record when it comes to racial profiling.
  Our own auditors, the General Accounting Office, has found that while 
black female U.S. citizens are nine times more likely than white U.S. 
citizens to be the subject of x-ray searches by our Customs Service, 
they are half as likely as white female U.S. citizens to actually be 
carrying contraband.
  Let me repeat that. Even though African American women are found to 
carry contraband, U.S. citizen African American women are half as 
likely to carry contraband as white U.S. citizen women, they are nine 
times as likely to be searched. Yet we want to give the Customs Service 
more immunity from lawsuits for having done that? It is crazy.
  Then we talk about inspecting mail. We inspect mail that comes into 
this country because we do not know what it might contain. Good. But 
mail going out, our privacy invaded? Right now, Customs Service has 
every right to inspect that mail by getting a search warrant. They can 
hold mail.
  If they believe there is some contraband there, if there is money 
laundering occurring, all they have to do is hold it. They have the 
power to get a judicial order to hold it and inspect. What we are 
saying in this bill is forget

[[Page H8968]]

about getting the judicial order, let us let them inspect without that. 
This is wrong. We should not sacrifice privacy.
  We should pass this bill if we could, but we cannot. Let us defeat 
it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time, the assumption being we have no further speakers.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way and the wrong time to 
consider this bill. Voted out of committee on Halloween, this is your 
typical Ways and Means trick-or-treat bill; a ``trick'' for hard-
working employees, whose pay would be lowered, as originally proposed 
in a provision abandoned only last night, a ``treat'' for those who 
refuse to be held accountable.
  If this measure is so absolutely vital in the war on terrorism, why 
has the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Republican 
leadership sat on it for 36 days, for 5 weeks, doing nothing about this 
piece of legislation?
  No opportunity was offered to either the Ways and Means Committee or 
the Committee on the Judiciary, to consider the civil liberties 
questions associated with this measure.
  This bill is part of a larger, very troubling trend in our country 
today. In defending our country from terrorists, it is critically 
important that we not erode the very values and principles for which 
this country stands--that we not destroy our democratic system in a 
misguided attempt to save it.
  What separates us from our enemies is our respect for the rule of 
law, and as we seek to protect our freedom, we must not adopt measures 
that undermine our democracy.
  Each passing day, particularly from the mouth of Attorney General 
John Ashcroft, seems to bring new dangers to our system of liberty: 
Eavesdropping on conversations between attorneys and their clients; 
secret military tribunals that deny the choice of legal counsel, deny 
trial by jury, deny any appeal through the judicial process, and deny 
other due process guarantees. They are the very type of fundamental 
procedural rights that those of us in the Human Rights Caucus have 
criticized when employed in countries around the world. Despite 
objections from the FBI, now the Justice Department is considering 
spying on domestic religious organizations. And now this measure today 
that would make it almost impossible for one to challenge an 
unconstitutional search and would allow the surreptitious opening of 
some of our mail.
  This bill ought not to be considered in this way at this time. 
Because this bill fails to maintain the appropriate balance between our 
security and our rights. We need a no vote.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for allowing me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the story of Yvette Bradley. A 33-
year-old advertising executive and her sister arrived at Newark Airport 
from a vacation in Jamaica, an African American woman. Upon 
encountering Customs agents, Ms. Bradley recalls that she, along with 
most of the other black women on the flight, were singled out for 
searches and interrogation, where she experienced one the most 
humiliating moments of her life. All throughout her body was tapped and 
private parts were tapped. And, you know what, Mr. Speaker, no drugs or 
contraband was found.
  I happen to be a strong supporter of our Customs agents and the 
responsibilities that they have. Interestingly enough, however, they 
have all of the provisions that they need to ensure the safety of this 
Nation.
  To take away, to give them a bye, a pass, on the Bill of Rights and 
the Constitution, the understanding of unreasonable search and 
seizures, is unfair. The ability to search mail, more than they have 
now, is unfair and it is not what the American people want us to do.
  This legislation did not go to the Committee on the Judiciary. This 
legislation came out of the Committee on Ways and Means on a party 
vote. It seems simply ludicrous that we throw to the wind our 
Constitution when we are fighting terrorism around the world.
  This bill fails to address the very serious problems of racial 
profiling and invasions of privacy by our Customs agents. The Customs 
Service has a poor record on racial profiling. A March 2000 General 
Accounting Office report found that while black female U.S. citizens 
were nine times more likely than white female U.S. citizens to be 
subjected to x-ray searches by the Customs Service, these black women 
were less than half as likely to be found carrying contraband as white 
females.
  Last April, Yvette Bradley, a 33-year-old advertising executive and 
her sister arrived at Newark Airport from a vacation in Jamaica. Upon 
encountering Customs agents Ms. Bradley recalls that she, along with 
most of the other black women on the flight, were singled out for 
searches and interrogation where she ``experienced one of the most 
humiliating moments of (her) life.'' According to a subsequent ACLU 
lawsuit, Bradley was led to a room at the airport and instructed to 
place her hands on the wall while a Customs officer ran her hands and 
fingers over every area of her body, including her breasts and the 
inner and outer labia of her vagina. The search did not reveal any 
drugs or contraband.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3129, contains a number 
of problematic provisions that perpetuate these kinds of insidious 
acts. Most notably, two provisions raise significant constitutional and 
civil liberties concerns. First, the Good Faith Immunity provision of 
section 141 provides Customs inspectors immunity from lawsuits stemming 
from personal searches of people entering the country so long as the 
officers conduct the searches in ``good faith.'' Importantly, this 
provision has nothing to do with preventing terrorists from boarding 
airplanes. Customs officers search passengers when they are exiting the 
plane, not when they are boarding. Nothing in the provision limits it 
to terrorist investigations.
  The provision was included as a ``procedural'' device to allow civil 
cases against individual Customs agents to be dismissed in the early 
stages of litigation. However, it is clear from a plain reading of this 
provision that the intent is to broaden the standard of immunity 
allowable under current law. The existing doctrine of qualified 
immunity protects public officials performing discretionary searches 
from civil damages if their conduct does not violate statutory or 
constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held 
that the proper standard of an officer's behavior with respect to 
liability is objective reasonableness and not subjective ``good 
faith.''
  This provision in H.R. 3129 could weaken protections against racial 
profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the 
Customs Service. Despite the Majority's stated intent, section 141 
appears to be a substantive, not a procedural, change and it is thus 
unclear why the provision is necessary.
  Next, the Outbound Mail provision of section 144 would allow Customs 
investigators broad authority to search mail. With respect to outbound 
U.S. mail, this would allow broad authority of Customs to search 
packages for unreported money or other monetary instruments, weapons, 
and other contraband which could be used by terrorists. With respect to 
sealed outbound U.S. mail, the bill allows broad authority to Customs 
to open mail with ``reasonable cause'' to suspect that the mail 
contains contraband. Under current law, the Customs Service may search, 
without a warrant, any inbound mail handled by the United States Postal 
Service and packages and letters handled by private carriers such as 
Federal Express and the United Parcel Service. This ``border 
exception'' to the fourth amendment derives from the authority of the 
government to protect its borders against inbound contraband and to 
collect duties on inbound freight.
  However, the bill would allow Customs officials to open ``sealed'' 
mail with ``reasonable cause.'' This is a far lower standard than 
probable cause, and would effectively eliminate the need for judicial 
review. Furthermore, section 144 would allow Customs officials to open 
``unsealed'' mail and any mail bearing a Customs declaration for no 
cause whatsoever.
  Americans have an expectation of privacy in the mail they send to 
friends, family, or business associates abroad. The Customs Service's 
interest in confiscating illegal weapons shipments, drugs, or other 
contraband is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search 
warrant when it has probable cause. Short of an emergency, postal 
officials can always hold a package while they wait for a court to 
issue a warrant.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I know people on the other side think that 
the

[[Page H8969]]

private sector ought always to be our model, but they have misapplied 
it in this case, because the model they have chosen is the Enron 
Corporation. The Enron Corporation got into trouble for engaging 
recklessly in trading in a way that violated the rules.
  Well, that is what is happening here today. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut is right. This is a very important bill, far too important 
to be debated under a procedure that was created for noncontroversial 
legislation: 40 minutes of debate and no amendments.
  There are several important pieces to this bill. They try to achieve 
important goals. But some of them are flawed. There is no reason why, 
we have not been working that hard this week, we could not have had a 
serious debate on this bill.
  Why is this now being rushed through? Because we are following the 
Enron principle. There is some trading going on here. In this case, 
what we are trading are votes on the trade bill.
  What happened is very simply this: The Republican leadership found 
itself short of votes for fast track, so what they decided to do was to 
reach into the goodie-bag, they pull out trade adjustment assistance, 
which they will grudgingly put forward for a vote, they reach into this 
bill and rush it forward because it has some payoff for people in the 
textile industry.
  I want to see the textile rules better enforced. I want to see us 
better protected a lot of ways. But I do not want to see that done by 
following the Enron model where the importance of trading is so 
overwhelming that you short circuit the rules and play fast and loose 
and get yourself in trouble.
  It is an absolute degradation of the legislative process for a bill 
of this importance to be debated under this procedure of suspension of 
the rules.
  We are opposing not the substance, which many of us support in some 
areas, but this degradation of the legislative process, this refusal to 
allow honest democratic debate on important subjects, simply because 
the Republican leadership finds itself a little shorter of votes than 
it thought for the bill.
  I would also say, while we are at it, that people who are tempted by 
this ought to be clear that they get some guarantees. When people bring 
up a bill just like this, just before another vote, with no guarantee 
that it is going to go anywhere, they better be worried about consumer 
fraud as well as illegitimate trading.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could the Speaker tell me how much time I 
have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) has 2 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of every textile battle that has been 
fought on this floor for the last 20 years, let me warn my colleagues, 
you are badly mistaken if you think this bill is going to help our 
beaten and beleaguered industry.
  First of all, it purports to put up $9.5 million for additional 
Customs enforcement. I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I 
am glad to have $9.5 million, but I am also sensible enough to know 
that it does not amount to a thing until there is an appropriation. And 
what bill would provide the appropriation? Treasury-Postal. Long gone. 
When is there another vehicle coming? Who knows.
  Secondly, this bill purports to deal with transshipment. Now, this is 
a chronic problem. I know it. I have offered legislation in the past to 
deal with it. If you wanted to get at it, you would get at the biggest 
offender, China, when the MFN bill came through here.
  In any event, this is not the real problem today, because 
transhipment is mainly about quota evasion, and quotas have grown so 
liberal and increased every year that we have a $77 billion trade 
deficit today in textiles and apparel.
  In any event, in any event, changing the definition of transshipment 
and asking for a General Accounting Office report on transshipment is 
not going to do a doggone thing about the problem until you put up 
money for additional Customs enforcement agents to do something about 
it.
  My friends, if you want to make sure textiles do not become the 
sacrificial lamb, the donor industry, in the next round of trade 
negotiations, if that is what you want to do, we ought to be out here 
on the floor mandating USTR, no further tariff cuts in textiles, no 
acceleration of the integration agreement and the abandonment of 
quotas.
  Textiles, believe me, Mr. Speaker, is an industry that is not just 
hurting, but is hemorrhaging and in desperate need of help, but this 
bill is deceitful in pretending to help and doing so very little.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
continues to reserve. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) has 
30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an old rule in politics: If you got the votes, 
shut up. And I guess that is what the chairman is thinking.
  But the fact is that the silence on the other side in answer to these 
constitutional questions, the fact that the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary never even came out here, no one came out here to 
rebut a single question of the Constitution, speaks louder than any 
words you could have spoken in the minutes that you have reserved.
  I am sure that when people listen, I guess silence means assent, they 
agree on the other side that we are right. We are taking away fourth 
amendment rights, and we are doing it without any hearings.
  This is really a sad day for the Constitution on the floor of the 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the folks who are listening and watching 
appreciate that someone who is listening and watching happens to be 
named Stephen L. Basha. Stephen L. Basha just called and said he could 
not believe what was occurring on the floor of the House.
  Stephen L. Basha just happens to be the Associate Chief Counsel of 
the Office of Chief Counsel of the U.S. Customs Service. He was the 
gentleman who was at a hearing. You have heard representations that we 
have had no hearings. The testimony from the committee will show we had 
hearings, and one of the principal witnesses was the very same Stephen 
L. Basha, who indicated that there are hundreds of Customs workers 
following the law who are, nevertheless, sued. They are sued up to and 
including their homes being attached. They are put through years of 
meat-grinder court cases by money-grubbing attorneys looking for cheap 
settlement, and, after years, they are vindicated.
  There is no question that in any situation when you are dealing with 
sensitive things like trying to make sure that terrorists do not come 
into this country, that drug dealers do not walk right past honest 
citizens, that there may be a mistake or two being made.
  The key there is in education, to make sure that these very useful 
profile techniques are constantly improved; that the people who are 
utilizing these are required to have sensitivity training; that they 
are required to know clearly the law; and that in the course of the 
testimony you will find, and I am not allowed to read from it under the 
Rules of the House, but it is here, a clear understanding and a 
commitment upon the recommendation of the Democrats that we require the 
information that is the lawful structure of that profiling to be 
prominently displayed to make sure that the workers are sensitized.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, I have heard several times that this is a power grab by the 
Committee on Ways and Means; that we are going around the jurisdiction 
of other committees. Seated just to the right and behind the Speaker is 
the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is a nonpartisan professional 
job. Their job is to analyze legislation and determine where it should 
go based upon the content of the legislation and the jurisdiction of 
the committees. Had this had an involvement with the Committee on

[[Page H8970]]

the Judiciary, under the Rules of the House, the nonpartisan 
Parliamentarian would have said that the Committee on the Judiciary 
must be involved, either through primary jurisdiction, through 
concurrent jurisdiction, or through sequential jurisdiction. None of 
those jurisdictional provisions were called for. Power grab?
  It is interesting that the gentleman from Texas lays upon this small 
and modest bill what he perceives to be the sins of the Bush 
administration through the Attorney General to try to protect the 
American people from further terrorist acts. This bill contains money 
not only to help in protecting against terrorism, but against drug 
addiction and against child pornography. If folks believe that this 
one, small provision requested by Customs to protect Customs officers 
in the lawful carrying out of their job is just too much for them, then 
vote against increasing our ability to protect Americans against 
terrorism, vote against a better, more efficient drug addiction 
structure, and vote against all of the new technological capabilities 
in going after those who prey on our youth.
  Now, the other thing that really amazes me, but sometimes my 
threshold for amazement is not as high as it probably should be; the 
gentlewoman from Texas in her remarks said this bill came out of 
committee on a party-line vote. Again, if my colleagues will check the 
records of the committee, she is absolutely, flat out, factually wrong. 
How can I say that? Because this did not come out of the committee with 
a vote recorded at all. Not only was it not a party-line vote, there 
was no vote. The record will show that there was no vote requested by 
the minority on ordering this bill from the committee to the floor. It 
was ordered from the committee to the floor on a voice vote. And yet, 
at the eleventh hour, all of these indignations are surfacing on a 
provision that was there, requested by the Customs officials, so that 
the hard-working, frontline soldiers at our border are not 
unnecessarily harassed in trying to carry out the law and in protecting 
Americans from drugs, from terrorism, and from child pornography.
  So in terms of the criticism that how come it has taken so long to 
bring this to the floor, which we heard, and then how come we are 
rushing it through; once again, if we take every side of the argument 
to stop a piece of legislation, the assumption is we may not 
necessarily be arguing about what is in the legislation, we just want 
the world to stop. Because in stopping the world, then the things that 
need to be done will not go forward and maybe, just maybe, somebody 
might be fooled into thinking that this would be a reason to vote for 
one person over another. If that is, in fact, the reason that we are 
opposing this piece of legislation, that is probably the worst possible 
reason that anyone could offer.
  What this is is a modest Customs reauthorization, and what it does is 
extend Customs' ability to deal with problems that are manifest, 
including the failure of the Customs Department to focus on areas that 
people who are concerned about illegal textiles, like transshipment, 
need to be focused on. We not only say more agents need to be involved, 
we say more money ought to be placed on the table. We do both in this 
bill. Is it enough? Probably not. Is it more than what we are doing 
now? Yes. Will it be better than yesterday? Yes.
  The gentleman from Washington said that we placed a study in the 
bill; again, he is factually flat out wrong. I said at the beginning 
that we were removing provisions of the bill. We did not add a study; 
we removed a provision. So when someone stands up and exhorts all of 
the problems and arrows of the world that have been inflicted on them 
by everyone else and says, all of it is manifest in this particular 
bill, I would ask that they actually take a look at what it is that we 
are placing before the House of Representatives in this bill. It is 
Customs reauthorization. It deals with those frontline soldiers who 
have an extremely difficult job; it provides them with a few more 
resources; it provides them with a few more technological tools in 
doing the job that they do, on the whole, very well, and that, 
hopefully, with this particular piece of legislation, they will be able 
to do it even better.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3129, the 
Customs Border Security Act of 2001. Most of H.R. 3129 is a well-
crafted and needed response to the events of September 11. I firmly 
believe that we need to strengthen the U.S. Customs Service to properly 
guard against the threats we now face. I particularly support the 
bill's provision for 285 new customs officers along the Canadian 
border. I represent a State that borders Canada and have seen the vast 
increase in traffic along US-95, one of our Nation's NAFTA corridors. 
Adding more customs officers will help protect Idaho, and the United 
States, from those who would seek to use the world's longest peaceful 
border against us.
  I also strongly support the provision raising the personal exemption 
for goods brought back into the United States from $400 to $800. This 
step will help facilitate the growth of tourism and cut through much 
useless red tape.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3129 contained provisions that forced me to vote 
against it. In particular, section 141 establishes so-called ``good-
faith'' protection for customs officers who violate the law in the 
course of carrying out their duties. If enacted into law section 141 
would prohibit those affected by such law-breaking from seeking damages 
from the guilty parties.
  Working men and women are punished every day in Idaho for alleged 
violations of Federal laws they didn't even know existed. Sadly their 
``good-faith'' carries no weight with the enforcement bureaucracies of 
the Federal Government. The officials who enforce these laws should be 
held to the same standards. Granting Federal bureaucrats special 
exemptions from the law is to establish an artificial separation of the 
government from the governed. Retaining the right to sue government 
officials for violations of our rights is the best defense imaginable 
for ensuring that those rights are protected in the first place. I 
cannot vote to remove this protection from my constituents.
  I welcome the announcement by Chairman Thomas that he will be 
bringing this bill up under regular order in the near future. I look 
forward to working with him and Members from both sides of the aisle to 
improve this bill and improve our Customs Service.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3129, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________