[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10358-H10363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRORIST BOMBINGS CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3275) to implement the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to strengthen criminal laws relating
to attacks on places of public use, to implement the International
Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat
terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3275
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST BOMBINGS
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Terrorist Bombings
Convention Implementation Act of 2001''.
SEC. 102. BOMBING STATUTE.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code,
relating to terrorism, is amended by inserting after section
2332e the following new section:
``Sec. 2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government
facilities, public transportation systems and
infrastructure facilities
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever unlawfully delivers, places,
discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device
in, into, or against a place of public use, a state or
government facility, a public transportation system, or an
infrastructure facility--
``(A) with the intent to cause death or serious bodily
injury, or
``(B) with the intent to cause extensive destruction of
such a place, facility, or system, where such destruction
results in or is likely to result in major economic loss,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
``(2) Attempts and conspiracies.--Whoever attempts or
conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be
punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
``(b) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over the
offenses in subsection (a) if--
``(1) the offense takes place in the United States and--
``(A) the offense is committed against another state or a
government facility of such state, including its embassy or
other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;
[[Page H10359]]
``(B) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel
another state or the United States to do or abstain from
doing any act;
``(C) at the time the offense is committed, it is
committed--
``(i) on board a vessel flying the flag of another state;
``(ii) on board an aircraft which is registered under the
laws of another state; or
``(iii) on board an aircraft which is operated by the
government of another state;
``(D) a perpetrator is found outside the United States;
``(E) a perpetrator is a national of another state or a
stateless person; or
``(F) a victim is a national of another state or a
stateless person;
``(2) the offense takes place outside the United States
and--
``(A) a perpetrator is a national of the United States or
is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the
United States;
``(B) a victim is a national of the United States;
``(C) a perpetrator is found in the United States;
``(D) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel the
United States to do or abstain from doing any act;
``(E) the offense is committed against a state or
government facility of the United States, including an
embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of the
United States;
``(F) the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the
flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered
under the laws of the United States at the time the offense
is committed; or
``(G) the offense is committed on board an aircraft which
is operated by the United States.
``(c) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death
results from the violation, shall be punished by death or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
``(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction.--This section does not
apply to--
``(1) the activities of armed forces during an armed
conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war,
which are governed by that law,
``(2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state
in the exercise of their official duties; or
``(3) offenses committed within the United States, where
the alleged offender and the victims are United States
citizens and the alleged offender is found in the United
States, or where jurisdiction is predicated solely on the
nationality of the victims or the alleged offender and the
offense has no substantial effect on interstate or foreign
commerce.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term--
``(1) `serious bodily injury' has the meaning given that
term in section 1365(g)(3) of this title;
``(2) `national of the United States' has the meaning given
that term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
``(3) `state or government facility' includes any permanent
or temporary facility or conveyance that is used or occupied
by representatives of a state, members of Government, the
legislature or the judiciary or by officials or employees of
a state or any other public authority or entity or by
employees or officials of an intergovernmental organization
in connection with their official duties;
``(4) `intergovernmental organization' includes
international organization (as defined in section 1116(b)(5)
of this title);
``(5) `infrastructure facility' means any publicly or
privately owned facility providing or distributing services
for the benefit of the public, such as water, sewage, energy,
fuel, or communications;
``(6) `place of public use' means those parts of any
building, land, street, waterway, or other location that are
accessible or open to members of the public, whether
continuously, periodically, or occasionally, and encompasses
any commercial, business, cultural, historical, educational,
religious, governmental, entertainment, recreational, or
similar place that is so accessible or open to the public;
``(7) `public transportation system' means all facilities,
conveyances, and instrumentalities, whether publicly or
privately owned, that are used in or for publicly available
services for the transportation of persons or cargo;
``(8) `explosive' has the meaning given in section 844(j)
of this title insofar that it is designed, or has the
capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury, or
substantial material damage;
``(9) `other lethal device' means any weapon or device that
is designed or has the capability to cause death, serious
bodily injury, or substantial damage to property through the
release, dissemination, or impact of toxic chemicals,
biological agents or toxins (as those terms are defined in
section 178 of this title), or radiation or radioactive
material;
``(10) `military forces of a state' means the armed forces
of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under
its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense
or security, and persons acting in support of those armed
forces who are under their formal command, control, and
responsibility;
``(11) `armed conflict' does not include internal
disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and
sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar
nature; and
``(12) `state' has the same meaning as that term has under
international law, and includes all political subdivisions
thereof.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 2332e
the following:
``2332f. Bombings of places of public use, government facilities,
public transportation systems and infrastructure
facilities.''.
(c) Disclaimer.--Nothing contained in this section is
intended to affect the applicability of any other Federal or
State law which might pertain to the underlying conduct.
SEC. 103. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 102 of this title shall become effective on the
date that the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings enters into force for the United States.
TITLE II--SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of
2001''.
SEC. 202. TERRORISM FINANCING STATUTE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, relating to terrorism, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new section:
``Sec. 2339C. Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism
``(a) Offenses.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in a circumstance described in
subsection (c), by any means, directly or indirectly,
unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds with the
intention that such funds be used, or with the knowledge that
such funds are to be used, in full or in part, in order to
carry out--
``(A) an act which constitutes an offense within the scope
of a treaty specified in subsection (e)(7), as implemented by
the United States, or
``(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not
taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of
armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature
or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a
government or an international organization to do or to
abstain from doing any act,
shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).
``(2) Attempts and conspiracies.--Whoever attempts or
conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be
punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(1).
``(3) Relationship to predicate act.--For an act to
constitute an offense set forth in this subsection, it shall
not be necessary that the funds were actually used to carry
out a predicate act.
``(b) Concealment.--
``(1) In General.--Whoever, in the United States, or
outside the United States and a national of the United States
or a legal entity organized under the laws of the United
States (including any of its States, districts,
commonwealths, territories, or possessions), knowingly
conceals or disguises the nature, the location, the source,
or the ownership or control of any material support or
resources provided in violation of section 2339B of this
chapter, or of any funds provided or collected in violation
of subsection (a) or any proceeds of such funds, shall be
punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(2).
``(2) Attempts and conspiracies.--Whoever attempts or
conspires to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be
punished as prescribed in subsection (d)(2).
``(c) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction over the
offenses in subsection (a) in the following circumstances--
``(1) the offense takes place in the United States and--
``(A) a perpetrator was a national of another state or a
stateless person;
``(B) on board a vessel flying the flag of another state or
an aircraft which is registered under the laws of another
state at the time the offense is committed;
``(C) on board an aircraft which is operated by the
government of another state;
``(D) a perpetrator is found outside the United States;
``(E) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out
of a predicate act against--
``(i) a national of another state; or
``(ii) another state or a government facility of such
state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular
premises of that state;
``(F) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out
of a predicate act committed in an attempt to compel another
state or international organization to do or abstain from
doing any act; or
``(G) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out
of a predicate act--
``(i) outside the United States; or
``(ii) within the United States, and either the offense or
the predicate act was conducted in, or the results thereof
affected, interstate or foreign commerce;
``(2) the offense takes place outside the United States
and--
``(A) a perpetrator is a national of the United States or
is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the
United States;
``(B) a perpetrator is found in the United States; or
[[Page H10360]]
``(C) was directed toward or resulted in the carrying out
of a predicate act against--
``(i) any property that is owned, leased, or used by the
United States or by any department or agency of the United
States, including an embassy or other diplomatic or consular
premises of the United States;
``(ii) any person or property within the United States;
``(iii) any national of the United States or the property
of such national; or
``(iv) any property of any legal entity organized under the
laws of the United States, including any of its States,
districts, commonwealths, territories, or possessions;
``(3) the offense is committed on board a vessel flying the
flag of the United States or an aircraft which is registered
under the laws of the United States at the time the offense
is committed;
``(4) the offense is committed on board an aircraft which
is operated by the United States; or
``(5) the offense was directed toward or resulted in the
carrying out of a predicate act committed in an attempt to
compel the United States to do or abstain from doing any act.
``(d) Penalties.--
``(1) Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
``(2) Whoever violates subsection (b) shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) the term `funds' means assets of every kind, whether
tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, however
acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form,
including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or
interest in, such assets, including coin, currency, bank
credits, travelers checks, bank checks, money orders, shares,
securities, bonds, drafts, and letters of credit;
``(2) the term `government facility' means any permanent or
temporary facility or conveyance that is used or occupied by
representatives of a state, members of a government, the
legislature, or the judiciary, or by officials or employees
of a state or any other public authority or entity or by
employees or officials of an intergovernmental organization
in connection with their official duties;
``(3) the term `proceeds' means any funds derived from or
obtained, directly or indirectly, through the commission of
an offense set forth in subsection (a);
``(4) the term `provides' includes giving, donating, and
transmitting;
``(5) the term `collects' includes raising and receiving;
``(6) the term `predicate act' means any act referred to in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1);
``(7) the term `treaty' means--
``(A) the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful
Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on December 16, 1970;
``(B) the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at Montreal on
September 23, 1971;
``(C) the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including
Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on December 14, 1973;
``(D) the International Convention against the Taking of
Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on December 17, 1979;
``(E) the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material, adopted at Vienna on March 3, 1980;
``(F) the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of
Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation,
supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, done at
Montreal on February 24, 1988;
``(G) the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on
March 10, 1988;
``(H) the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the
Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988; or
``(I) the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on December 15, 1997;
``(8) the term `intergovernmental organization' includes
international organizations;
``(9) the term `international organization' has the same
meaning as in section 1116(b)(5) of this title;
``(10) the term `armed conflict' does not include internal
disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and
sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar
nature;
``(11) the term `serious bodily injury' has the same
meaning as in section 1365(g)(3) of this title;
``(12) the term `national of the United States' has the
meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
``(13) the term `state' has the same meaning as that term
has under international law, and includes all political
subdivisions thereof.
``(f) Civil Penalty.--In addition to any other criminal,
civil, or administrative liability or penalty, any legal
entity located within the United States or organized under
the laws of the United States, including any of the laws of
its States, districts, commonwealths, territories, or
possessions, shall be liable to the United States for the sum
of at least $10,000, if a person responsible for the
management or control of that legal entity has, in that
capacity, committed an offense set forth in subsection
(a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``2339C. Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism.''.
(c) Disclaimer.--Nothing contained in this section is
intended to affect the scope or applicability of any other
Federal or State law.
SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except for sections 2339C(c)(1)(D) and (2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, which shall become effective on the date
that the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism enters into force for the United
States, and for the provisions of section 2339C(e)(7)(I) of
title 18, United States Code, which shall become effective on
the date that the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombing enters into force for the
United States, section 202 of this title shall be effective
upon enactment.
TITLE III--ANCILLARY MEASURES
SEC. 301. ANCILLARY MEASURES.
(a) Wiretap Predicates.--Section 2516(1)(q) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by--
(1) inserting ``2332f,'' after ``2332d,''; and
(2) striking ``or 2339B'' and inserting ``2339B, or
2339C''.
(b) Federal Crime of Terrorism.--Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
(1) inserting ``2332f (relating to bombing of public places
and facilities),'' after ``2332b (relating to acts of
terrorism transcending national boundaries),''; and
(2) inserting ``2339C (relating to financing of
terrorism),'' before ``or 2340A (relating to torture)''.
(c) Providing Material Support to Terrorists Predicate.--
Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``2332f,'' before ``or 2340A''.
(d) Forfeiture of Funds, Proceeds, and Instrumentalities.--
Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
``(H) Any property, real or personal, involved in a
violation or attempted violation, or which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to a violation, of section
2339C of this title.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3275, the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we have learned in recent months, the only effective
way to fight terrorism is to fight it on a global scale. In order to
accomplish this, it is important that we build an international
framework for combating terrorism in all its forms. The first and most
important piece of this framework is international cooperation. Passage
of the bill before us today will allow the United States to reinforce
the international community's intolerance for and condemnation of
terrorist acts and their financing.
Mr. Speaker, on December 5, 2001, the Senate gave its advice and
consent to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression
of Financing of Terrorism. H.R. 3275 makes appropriate changes to Title
18 of the United States Code in order to implement these treaties so
that they can be ratified by the President.
The Terrorist Bombings Convention addresses the most utilized form of
terrorism, the bombings of public places, State or government
facilities, public transportation systems or infrastructure facilities,
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. H.R. 3275
enacts a new statute which would criminalize these acts if they have an
international nexus, such as the bombing of a foreign embassy located
in the United States. Nations who are a party to this treaty agree to
extradite or
[[Page H10361]]
prosecute persons accused of such offenses, and also agree to provide
assistance in connection with the investigation of such crimes.
I am sure everyone is aware that there are already State and Federal
laws that criminalize terrorist bombings. This legislation will
supplement those laws and close any loopholes that an accused terrorist
may try to exploit in a court of law. Furthermore, the legislation
covers biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, as well as
conventional explosives.
The Terrorist Financing Convention addresses a common element of
every terrorist act, financing and other support. This treaty
recognizes that the financial backers of terrorism are just as
responsible as those who commit the terrorist acts themselves. H.R.
3275 makes it a crime to unlawfully and willingly provide or collect
funds with the intention or knowledge that such funds are to be used to
carry out any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a
civilian. As with the Terrorist Bombing Convention, there must be some
international nexus with the terrorist financing, such as someone
operating outside of the United States. Likewise, nations who are a
party to this treaty also agree to extradite or prosecute and assist in
criminal investigations.
The Terrorist Bombing and Terrorist Financing Conventions follow the
general model of prior terrorism conventions negotiated by the United
States. These conventions will significantly strengthen the network of
anti-terrorism treaties built over the last 30 years by requiring
nations to criminalize terrorist conduct identified in the treaties and
to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of the offenses.
Given the global way that terrorists operate, it is imperative that we
make sure that as many countries as possible have comparable laws
against terrorism for an effective framework of investigation,
extradition, and prosecution.
{time} 1015
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3275 which would implement
the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings,
and the international convention for the suppression of the financing
of terrorism. I am not opposed to the bill because of the treaties, but
because of the extraneous items that are in the treaties. These
treaties have been pending for some time, and I applaud the President
for his present resolve in having the treaties ratified.
There are many extraneous provisions in the bills that are not
necessary, however, to ratify either of the treaties. The treaties
require that we have such laws on the books which would do such things
like criminalize terrorist bombings and the financing of terrorist
activities.
A few weeks ago, we passed legislation which was represented by the
administration as a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill designed to cover
the full gamut terrorist threats in this country, as well as the
support of terrorist activities. Upon that representation, we provided
unprecedented extensions of wiretap, RICO asset forfeitures, and
additional punishments were enacted into law. Now we are told that
additional laws have to be passed.
One of the provisions that requires us to have a law prohibiting
bombing of foreign embassies in the United States cannot possibly be
necessary. It is obviously against the law in the United States to bomb
any building, much less a foreign embassy. A lot of these statutes are
not needed.
The provisions before us do not constitute the treaties. The treaties
are embodied in other documents. There are provisions, for example,
that are actually counterproductive. This bill includes certain death
penalties. The death penalty actually works against us because many of
our allies will not extradite their criminals to the United States
because we have the death penalty. There are other provisions that are
not necessary. We were told by the administration that the death
penalty provisions were, in fact, not needed to implement the treaties,
and yet here they are in the bill.
Given this situation, Mr. Speaker, and other provisions in the bill
that are not necessary to implement the treaties, I would hope that we
would defeat the bill and reconsider the bill just providing the
provisions that are necessary to implement the treaty.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and am prepared to close if the gentleman from Virginia has no further
speakers.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
his kindness in yielding me this time, and I would also like to thank
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). I know that the
chairman is working on a number of legislative initiatives that are
coming to the floor of the House, and that the gentleman is being
required to move these legislative initiatives rather quickly. In fact,
I also know that the gentleman has been working to help us move some
legislation forward dealing with the access to legalization of
immigrants, and I know that we have had some difficulties with that,
but I thank him for his leadership and concern on those issues.
I say that because I do not think any Member has opposition to an
international convention that deals with the suppression of terrorist
bombings, and that we recognize the key importance of the international
convention of the suppression of the financing of terrorism. There is
not one iota of difference, I believe, with Members on both sides of
the aisle on the importance of moving forward on finding terrorists,
bringing terrorists to justice, and ensuring that our international
colleagues, our friends around the world, the nations that are our
allies and others around the world, should have a convention and treaty
that puts us on the same page in fighting terrorism.
At the same time, I think it is important to note as we move forward
on this legislation, and I raise a number of caution flags, for me to
again offer my concerns about the existence of military tribunals
without any set criteria and regulations upon which they are utilized.
Members might ask the question where goes the relationship in
connection with this legislation, but I think if we refuse to bring
this up and continue in silence to accept the existence of military
tribunals with what the other body has annunciated is not in place,
meaning the other body asked the questions what kind of regulation,
what kind of requirements, what kind of criteria do you use to try
people at military tribunals? If we do not raise that issue even as we
bring to the floor of the House this legislation, then we have a
problem.
I acknowledge my concern with the quiet violation of the 6th
Amendment, and that is individuals who are being listened to as their
attorney is providing them counsel. If we do not raise these issues on
the floor of the House, my concern about those policies is they have no
criteria, they have no regulation, they have no governance.
Mr. Speaker, how can we claim to want to fairly deal with laws and
pass an international convention on terrorism where we want everyone to
join in around consistent rules and regulations, when we have these
provisions in the United States with seemingly no basis and no need.
It is interesting that we are now going to try one of the terrorists
found in the United States by a civil court, a judiciary system under
the laws of the United States. I think that is commendable. It says
that we are unsure of the reasons for the military tribunal, and
whether or not we need to use them. And we have found that our judicial
system, the third branch of government, is more than adequate to be
able to try one of the alleged horrific terrorists that was involved in
the September 11 attacks.
As it relates to this legislation, I would add my concerns to the
passage of this legislation, without any commentary pro or con on the
death penalty. I think it is important that we
[[Page H10362]]
make the point that many of those who would be adhering to this treaty
have great concern that we have language dealing with the death
penalty, and that we could have cleaned this particular legislation up
by accepting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to delete
the language, leaving in place the provision authorizing a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment. That, I think, would have made this a
more legitimate piece of legislation, in recognition of the fact that
many of those who would join in on this treaty are absolutely opposed
to the death penalty.
One of our known allies, France, in dealing with bringing people to
justice who find themselves in France, is the refusal of that country
to deport individuals for trial here in the United States because of
the death penalty.
It is also worthy of noting that the administration acknowledged that
capital punishment is not required to implement the conventions. For
those Members listening to this debate and saying, here we go again on
the debate of the death penalty, that is not the debate we are speaking
about. We are talking about making an effective legislative initiative
that deals with having a convention that will stand up.
Right now we have an Achilles heel. We have a failing in this
legislation because we know that there are many who have argued that
they will not participate or not join in or that there will be a
problem because of the death penalty provision, and at the same time,
we have an administration that says this is not necessary.
I am hoping as this legislation moves along, that we will take into
consideration the point of view of some of our closest allies who have
routinely refused to honor extradition requests by the United States
unless their judicial authorities can be assured that the defendants
will not face execution.
We have faced heinous acts against the people of the United States,
and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost loved ones on
September 11. Whether this legislation with the death penalty helps
solve our problems, I think not, particularly if those who are
harboring criminals would not extradite them because of the death
penalty.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, tomorrow I will be holding a briefing
dealing with the terrible atrocities or how the children of Afghanistan
are being treated because I believe all Americans are concerned about
two sides of the coin, the humanitarian side and the fighting terrorism
side. This is good legislation, but I think it could have been better
legislation if we had taken into consideration the viewpoints of those
who we seek to convene or seek to engage in the treaty, and that is
that we would have a life imprisonment provision as opposed to a death
penalty provision which undermines our relationship with our allies who
have opposition to this point of view.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. We are told that we
should not put a death penalty in this bill that relates to
implementing a convention against terrorist bombings where a death or
serious injury occur because the French do not like it. Well, the last
time I read the United States Constitution, the elected representatives
of the American people legislate for America, not the elected
representatives of the French people. This is an issue of our national
sovereignty and whether or not we believe that the death penalty is an
appropriate option for those who are accused of crimes under the
convention designed to combat terrorist bombings.
The overwhelming majority of the American people support the death
penalty, particularly when it is with respect to a terrorist act. We
should not let the parliament of any other country in the world make a
determination on what the appropriate penalty is for those who are
accused of these heinous crimes and are convicted by a unanimous
verdict of 12 jurors who believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant committed the crimes that are mentioned.
We already have provisions in the United States code providing for
the death penalty for terrorist act that result in somebody's death.
Without making this law parallel to the other penalties in the United
States code, we are setting up a dual system of justice. If a defendant
is indicted for violating one section, the defendant is subject to the
death penalty. If a defendant is indicted for violating another section
of the code as created by this bill, the defendant is not. That, I
think, is the wrong message that we ought to send both domestically and
internationally with respect to this issue.
I remind Members, Mr. Speaker, that since 1972, the death penalty is
not automatic upon conviction of a crime. The same jury that has
convicted someone of a capital defense is reimpaneled and hears
aggravating and mitigating evidence, and makes a determination whether
or not the death penalty should be imposed. Who is better equipped to
do that but the jurors that listened to the trial on the merits, saw
the demeanor of the defendant in court, whether or not the defendant
testified in his or her own behalf, decided which witnesses were
telling the truth and which witnesses were not, and were able to see
the demeanor of every other participant in that trial.
I think that the message that we ought to send, purely and simply, is
that the elected representatives of the American people will decide
what these penalties are, not people in France or in Italy or in Sweden
or Germany or anyplace else. I think that the American people want the
death penalty for these types of crimes as an option when a defendant
is indicted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1030
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to facilitate the fight against
terrorism and working with our allies in that fight, and it is,
frankly, not helpful in that process to have situations where our
allies will not cooperate with us because of the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with the chairman of the
committee for the same reasons that were articulated by both the
gentlewoman from Texas and the ranking member of the subcommittee. I
think we have to put this in context and understand exactly what is
required in terms of the Convention. The administration itself has
acknowledged that this death penalty provision is not required to
implement the Convention.
I have no disagreement with the gentleman's premise that it is the
United States Congress that imposes or reflects, if you will, the will
of the majority of the American people. At the same time, this
provision is going to cause serious problems. In fact, not only is it
not required under the Convention, but, as the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) indicated, it will actually impair the fight against
international terrorism by making it harder for the Justice Department
to secure extradition in these kinds of cases.
Our continued resort to the death penalty has brought condemnation
from nations across the globe. Even some of our closest allies
routinely refuse to honor extradition requests by the United States
unless their judicial authorities can be assured that the defendants
will not face execution. It has become a serious problem in terms of
our legal relationships with our most steadfast allies, some of which
were enumerated by the chairman of the committee.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms precludes extradition to the
United States unless U.S. authorities give assurances that the death
penalty will not be imposed. Similar rulings have been made by
governments and courts in France, South Africa and elsewhere.
I do not see how it serves American interests to enact additional
provisions that do not exist currently in the law that will further
complicate our ability to prosecute terrorists and further marginalize
the U.S. within the family of nations.
Now, the administration justifies the new death penalty provision by
claiming that it merely tracks current law with respect to comparable
domestic
[[Page H10363]]
crimes. That, I am sure, is accurate. But the fact that the current law
presents an obstacle to our law enforcement objectives is hardly a
persuasive argument for compounding the problem.
Reasonable people may continue to disagree with whether the death
penalty serves as a deterrent to some categories of crimes, but I am at
a loss to see how anyone can seriously believe that the prospect of the
death penalty will deter suicide missions of the kind that this Nation
witnessed on September 11. I dare say it will have no effect
whatsoever, and I believe the administration implicitly concedes as
much when it says that this new provision merely replicates existing
death penalty provisions, provisions which did nothing to prevent those
attacks from occurring.
Now, again, I support the Convention. I believe it should be ratified
and implemented with all reasonable dispatch. But we have a
responsibility to achieve that goal in a way that generally advances
our national interests. I hope the Senate will fix this legislation so
that that can happen.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to implement a treaty. In order to
be limited to that purpose, the bill goes well beyond what needs to be
done, and, in fact, contains provisions that may be counterproductive.
I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have now heard the proposition that passing this bill
as it is with the death penalty provisions contained in it is somehow
going to render ineffective the foreign policy of the United States.
I would draw the attention of the gentleman from Massachusetts, in
particular, to House document 107-139, which is a legislative proposal
transmitted by the President of the United States to Congress on
October 25, 2001, containing the death penalty. Now, under the
Constitution, it is the President that conducts the foreign policy of
the United States, and if he believed that the death penalty features
in this legislation which involved terrorist bombings would somehow
hamper his ability to put together an international coalition to fight
the al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, I am sure he would
have said so in this message that he sent to the Congress. But he did
not.
Giving prosecutors the opportunity to ask for the death penalty when
there is a particularly heinous crime I think is something that should
be an arrow in the quiver of the Justice Department. I regret that the
opponents of this legislation have made their philosophical opposition
to the death penalty a reason to vote down the implementation of a
treaty designed to combat international terrorism such as bombing of
public facilities that we have seen occur at our embassies in Africa
and which, unfortunately, occur on an almost daily basis in Israel, but
I think that the President is right that we should have the option of
having a death penalty as one of the penalties, should someone be
indicted, tried and convicted.
I would urge the membership to support this bill overwhelmingly.
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 Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3275, 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. SENSENBRENNER. 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.
____________________