[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.
____________________