[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2861-H2890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CUSTOMS BORDER SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 426 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill H.R. 3129.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1355


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. LaHood (Chairman pro 
tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the bill 
is considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This piece of legislation which was up before us some time ago on the 
suspension calendar is modest but extremely important. Obviously 
following September 11, and the creation of the homeland security 
structure, more and more people in positions of responsibility have 
begun to realize that one of the ways we can assure the security of 
Americans is to provide a more seamless control of our borders.
  Historically, Customs officials have had an important, significant 
role to play normally in the area of commercial intercourse or 
commerce.
  To the degree that they are going to be asked to integrate with other 
border

[[Page H2862]]

enforcement structures such as security and the like, this bill becomes 
one of the assisting tools in making that happen. There are other uses 
looking at antidrug smuggling, antiterrorist, antichild pornography 
provisions, and in preparing this bill to come to the floor under a 
rule, since it did not get the two-thirds required on suspension, 
notwithstanding the fact it got a significant majority vote, the 
members of the majority looked at the bill and said are there any areas 
of this bill that we would still like to retain but that probably are 
far less essential today than they were when the committee moved on 
this bill some months ago?
  Clearly, one of the obvious areas is an attempt to adjust what has 
been described as an inappropriate or unfair compensation structure for 
Customs officials at particular locales. Notwithstanding the fact that 
we believe those adjustments are overdue and need to be made, we 
offered to the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules accepted, 
the willingness to delete those provisions which appeared to be 
controversial.
  The labor union that represents Customs workers is not opposed to the 
bill in its current form, as they said in their letter, as long as this 
provision does not come back in.

                              {time}  1400

  I can assure anyone that if we make a change, our goal is not to 
change it today and then rechange it tomorrow. The commitment is to 
make the change now, because the other items in the bill are far more 
important to move forward and make into law than a debate that has been 
going on for some time, and I am quite sure will go on for an 
additional time.
  Therefore, this bill is before us today in a form that should not 
illicit significant opposition, but that we would be very desirous of a 
significant bipartisan vote to let the American people know that in 
making sure that our borders are safe and protected, that the Customs 
Service is in the forefront of moving to the new structure to secure 
homeland security. This particular bill goes a long way toward 
assisting in that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me join with the chairman in support of those parts of the bill 
that he spoke about and to indicate that our substitute merely tries to 
perfect two provisions.
  The first provision deals with the question of immunity. I want to 
say that our customs officials and agencies and employees are our first 
line of defense against terrorism. They do a fantastic job. But under 
this particular bill they are granted immunity for their conduct when 
they perform searches, and personal searches, if indeed the search was 
made in good faith.
  Now, under the Constitution, the standard for liability is not really 
whether or not there has been good faith but whether or not it has been 
reasonable, and that is the proper test that we have to use. This is 
the constitutional test we have to use. And there is no evidence that 
blanket immunity by the Federal Government and by the customs agency, 
even though the search may have been performed in good faith, should 
leave our American citizens without any recourse.
  In our fight against terrorism, we must make certain that we do not 
do damage to the principles of civil rights and certainly not do damage 
to the constitutional rights of American citizens. So in the 
substitute, we maintain the aura of immunity for the particular customs 
officer, but we do allow for the aggrieved party. If indeed they are 
found to have been subject to an unreasonable search, they may sue the 
Federal Government, so that there would be some relief, and some 
incentives for the customs agencies not just to respond as to what they 
think is in good faith but what is reasonable under the Constitution.
  It just seems to us that we would weaken the protections against 
racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the 
customs department if we left our citizens, having been treated in an 
unconstitutional manner, without any redress at all. It is in times of 
crisis, such as those we are going through, that truly tests a 
democracy. And I am certain that in voting for the substitute my 
colleagues will get the benefits of the bill but also this deficiency 
will be corrected.
  The second thing that is provided here is that under current law the 
Customs Service is empowered to search without a warrant for inbound 
mail handled by the United States Post Office. And, of course, this 
border exception to the fourth amendment is derived from the 
traditional authority of a sovereign to protect its border against 
inbound contraband and to collect duties on inbound freight.
  But the rationale of the border exception does not allow customs 
searches of outgoing mail without a warrant. Section 144 would allow 
customs officials to open mail with reasonable cause, which is a much 
lower standard than probable cause and would eliminate the need for 
judicial review. The United States Post Office believes that this is an 
unreasonable provision. They have written in support of the provision 
which I have mentioned would be in the substitute where we just strike 
the provision that gives the Customs Service the power to open mail 
just because they think it is reasonable but they do not have probable 
cause to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, and ask that he be allowed to allocate 
time based on the requests made of him.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me respond briefly to the two provisions that my colleague from New 
York referred to.
  That same letter that indicated that the union would not oppose if we 
move the labor provisions is in strong support of the immunity 
provision for customs inspectors. Rarely do you have a job which 
basically says you will examine people as they come across the border. 
There are clearly provisions, customs guidelines, that determine 
racial, religious, ethnic and gender profiling that prohibit that but 
do allow some protections for the customs officer.
  If anyone would listen to the case histories of some of these cases 
that are in the courts, for example notwithstanding the fact that 
someone was searched and contraband was found, they nevertheless wanted 
to sue because they did not believe the customs officials had a right 
to search them. And that was notwithstanding the fact that the obvious 
evidence of the contraband on them was more than enough reason for the 
customs official to search them.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the substitute is a good-faith effort, but 
they are trying to walk a fine line; and it is the majority's opinion 
that there is no fine line that you can walk. Because if you provide 
inspectors immunity, and the Federal Government supports that immunity 
under a very clear guideline that would not violate any racial, 
religious, ethnic or gender profiling approach, then they are saying 
the Federal Government should waive its sovereign immunity 
notwithstanding. That then creates a new unprecedented class of Federal 
torts and we are right back in the courtroom with years and years of 
lives of people who were simply carrying out their job under a very 
narrow proscribed set of rules. Because even if they do that, there is 
no protection against this new form of Federal torts if the Federal 
Government waves its sovereign immunity.
  It seems to me in this particular era, we either back up these people 
or we do not. If they are following the rules, we should protect them. 
If they are not, there are clear procedures to make sure they are 
treated in a manner they should be treated in if they violate 
administrative policy in carrying out their jobs.
  So in looking at the bill itself, I do hope Members appreciate the 
broad support that the underlying bill has, and that although the 
substitute focuses on a couple of areas that will be addressed beyond 
the immunity question, if we are going to allow a true examination of 
the ways in which we can protect this country, under a search warrant, 
it seems entirely appropriate that based upon sufficient suspicion you 
ought to be able to read a piece of outbound mail. Under the courts of

[[Page H2863]]

this country, you would only be allowed to then take a look at what the 
content of the mail was. But it seems to me if you can have the ability 
to deal with it with inbound mail, you certainly ought to, with full 
court protection, have the ability to look at it in terms of outbound 
mail as well.
  As we are now becoming more and more aware through the news media of 
the ability of various terrorist groups to communicate using the modern 
technology which allows for rapid communication, and certainly would 
not ignore the good old-fashioned postage stamp on an envelope, if it 
was given unusual constitutional protection and they knew that no 
official of the government could, even with a court order, take a look 
at what was in a particular envelope that appeared very, very 
suspicious.
  We believe it is an essential part of the bill; and we would like to 
retain it in the bill. Therefore, my colleagues should vote for the 
bill and against the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time 
be controlled by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Trade, and that he be allowed to disperse the 
time in such manner as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 
2001. As a Member representing a border community, I am pleased that 
Congress is taking action to improve the security of our borders. The 
customs officials and inspectors who work along the U.S.-Mexico border 
are hardworking, dedicated people, who do an outstanding job with very 
limited resources. For too many years they have been short staffed and 
have worked long hours of overtime to keep our ports open. I want to 
thank the members of the Committee on Ways and Means for recognizing 
this problem.
  This bill will authorize funding to hire additional personnel and to 
upgrade detection and inspection equipment. This new equipment and 
personnel will make it easier for customs officials to stop illegal 
drug trafficking and improve our anti-terrorism capabilities. At the 
same time, it will help keep trade, the lifeblood of border 
communities, moving efficiently through our ports.
  I want to commend the ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel), for his work in crafting an amendment that improves the 
underlying bill by addressing several concerns expressed by groups like 
the National Council of La Raza and the American Civil Liberties Union. 
The Rangel amendment protects customs officials from personal liability 
for monetary damages in civil suits while at the same time providing 
recourse to individuals whose civil rights are violated.
  Our Nation's security depends on the security of our borders and 
ports. I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the approach taken in this legislation to outbound mail 
only makes common sense. There ought to be parity between outbound mail 
and inbound mail. Presently, there is absolutely no dispute that 
customs can search all inbound mail. And they do that. However, despite 
a number of court decisions, despite the Federal regulations, despite 
code provisions, postal regulations do not allow the post office to 
search outbound mail. It makes no sense.
  If you ship something by FedEx or UPS, if you put it in a car, put it 
on a ship, fly it in an airplane, even put it in your own pocket and 
you leave the country, you are liable to search. The only search that 
is not allowed is if you put it in an envelope and mail it out.
  Now, this disparity has been addressed, and I will name those 
decisions. There have been two Supreme Court decisions, Shultz, the 
Ramsey case. The Ninth Circuit has considered this; the Fifth Circuit 
has considered this. They have all said that customs has the right to 
do it. But what happens when they try to do it? Well, the postal 
service does not allow them to do it.
  Now, as a result, when the postal service has stopped this, there 
have been several protests lodged. In fact, the first was that we had 
testimony in this Congress in 2000 and 2001 that drug dealers were 
using outbound mail to ship the proceeds of drug sales. And, in fact, I 
introduced at a committee hearing a drug dealer's Web site where they 
say this. Here is what they say, and I am going to submit this for the 
Record.

                              {time}  1415

  ``Do not use UPS, Federal Express, or any other overnight express 
service, as customs may look at it. Regular mail is anonymous and 
safe.''
  That is actually on a drug dealer's Web site. But it was not just the 
drug dealers who knew this. President Clinton commissioned the 
International Crime Control Strategy Committee, a bipartisan committee. 
They looked at that. Among their findings was this:
  ``Customs has identified various methods of currency smuggling that 
remain a challenge. Notable among these methods is the exploitation of 
the U.S. mail. Hundreds of thousands of dollars can be smuggled out of 
the United States, at only the cost of postage, in letters and 
packages.''
  But scariest of all is testimony that we heard prior to September 11 
that terrorists were using the U.S. mail, that they were exploiting the 
U.S. mail. We heard testimony, the committees of this Congress, that we 
were creating one of the greatest enforcement stumbling blocks United 
States agencies had in fighting terrorists and money laundering. 
Despite that, the post office continued not to cooperate with the 
Treasury, the FBI and the customs. Therefore, we had this headline 
which we could have avoided or possibly avoided by adopting this 
language prior to September 11: Attacks Show a Lack of Cooperation 
Between Agencies.
  Has September 11 not taught us one thing? Has it not taught us that 
the post office ought to be a partner in our fight against terrorism? 
This language should have been adopted before September 11. Let us 
adopt it now. Let us slam the door on money launderers, terrorists and 
drug dealers and let us do it today.
  The U.S. Customs Service should be able to inspect merchandise that 
is exiting the United States through the U.S. Postal Service--just like 
it can inspect all merchandise that enters the United States through 
the Postal Service.
  Existing law enables the U.S. Customs Service to inspect merchandise 
exiting the United States via any mode of transportation--including 
truck, ship, car, airplane, private express carrier, or person.
  The Postal Service claims that it is exempt from these laws--making 
it the only mode of export for which Customs cannot inspect outbound 
merchandise.
  Customs' inspection of outbound and inbound merchandise is 
Constitutional.
  Under the Constitution, the Customs Service has outbound and inbound 
border search authority for all merchandise, including that carried on 
or in an airplane, vessel, vehicle, person, package, or envelope 
departing or entering the United States. Neither the Fourth Amendment 
nor any statute prohibits Customs from inspecting outbound merchandise.
  Courts have upheld Customs' general border search authority, and in 
particular over inbound mail and outbound shipments. These decisions 
support Congress acting to affirm Customs' authority. See United States 
v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977); United States v. Berisha, 925 F.2d 791 
(5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ezeiruaku, 936 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 
1991); United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1985); United 
States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1983).
  Some enterprising sellers of illegal drugs have even boldly stated on 
their internet site that mail-order customers should use the mails to 
avoid inspections:

       Do not use UPS, Federal Express, or any other overnight 
     express service, as customs may look at it. Regular mail 
     (registered, if you like), is anonymous and safe.

  Recent congressional testimony of Customs pointed to the lack of 
export examination requirements as to USPS shipments as the

[[Page H2864]]

``greatest enforcement stumbling blocks,'' creating ``a money 
launderer's dream-come-true.'' Testimony, U.S. Customs Service, House 
of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Criminal Justice, 
Drug Policy and Human Resources Subcommittee Hearing, May 26, 2000.
  Customs testimony at this hearing pointed out that not just money 
laundering is involved, that this ``loophole literally creates a haven 
for smugglers of all kinds. A flawed system such as this can facilitate 
many other illegal exports and intransit shipments such as child 
pornography, items or materials to be used in terrorist attacks, 
weapons, sensitive military or high tech products not licensed for 
exportation . . .''
  The Postal Service's position is clearly anti-law enforcement and 
allows the US Postal Service to be the outbound smuggling method of 
choice for drug cartels and other criminal entities. No public policy 
is served by exempting outbound Postal Service shipments of merchandise 
from Customs' inspection.

Protect the U.S. Border While Maintaining Privacy--Privacy of the U.S. 
                          Mail Is Not at Risk


           parity between outbound and inbound mail shipments

       The U.S. Customs Service should be able to inspect 
     merchandise that is exiting the United States through the 
     U.S. Postal Service--just like it can inspect all merchandise 
     that enters the United States through the Postal Service. [19 
     U.S.C. Sec. 482; 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1581; 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1582; 19 
     C.F.R., Part 145; 19 C.F.R., Part 162]


                     parity between modes of export

       Existing law enables the U.S. Customs Service to inspect 
     merchandise exiting the United States via any mode of 
     transportation--including truck, ship, car, airplane, private 
     express carrier, or person. [22 U.S.C. Sec. 401; 22 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2778; 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5317; 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2411]
       The Postal Service claims that it is exempt from these 
     laws--making it the only mode of export for which Customs 
     cannot inspect outbound merchandise.


                          constitutional basis

       Customs' inspection of outbound and inbound merchandise is 
     Constitutional.
       Under the Constitution, the Customs Service has outbound 
     and inbound border search authority for all merchandise, 
     including that carried on or in an airplane, vessel, vehicle, 
     person, package, or envelope departing or entering the United 
     States. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor any statute 
     prohibits Customs from inspecting outbound merchandise. [See, 
     e.g., California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1973). 
     United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). United States 
     v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1985). United States v. 
     Whiting, 781 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1986). United States v. 
     Berisha, 925 F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1991).]


                             letter privacy

       Allowing Customs to inspect outbound merchandise sent via 
     the Postal Service does not change the law that Customs 
     Officers may not open sealed letter class mail that only 
     contains correspondence without a warrant or consent. [19 
     C.F.R. Sec. 145.3]
       For inbound Postal Service shipments, the Customs 
     regulations prohibit Customs officers from opening letter 
     class mail that contains only correspondence except when 
     either a warrant or the consent of the sender/addressee is 
     obtained. The Postal Service has endorsed these regulations 
     for inbound shipments and they could easily be applied to 
     outbound Postal Service shipments.

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3129, the Customs Border 
Security Act, in its present form and urge my colleagues to support the 
substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Section 141 of H.R. 3129 is problematic because it offers full 
immunity from civil damages if a customs officer performed the search 
in so-called good faith. Since the bill does not define what 
constitutes good faith, it effectively expands the current immunity 
standard to the point of making it nearly impossible for a person to 
seek redress against a customs officer for an unconstitutional search.
  Under current law, government officers performing their specified 
functions are afforded qualified immunity from civil damages as long as 
the officer's actions do not violate clearly established statutory or 
constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known. The 
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1992 that officers ``are not 
liable for bad guesses in gray areas, they are liable for transgressing 
bright lines.'' That is the current law.
  The availability of qualified immunity is determined against a 
standard of objective reasonableness. Whether an officer may be held 
personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the 
action assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly 
established at the time the action was taken. As the Supreme Court said 
in 1986, the present qualified immunity protects ``all but the plainly 
incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law.''
  But this bill seeks to go further and extends the immunity to 
situations where customs officers allege that they were acting in good 
faith, regardless of whether they were transgressing a bright line in 
the law or not, and regardless of whether they should have known that 
their actions violated the law. Under this bill, a customs officer 
could engage in blatantly discriminatory conduct; but if he believed it 
was in good faith, then he could not be held liable.
  Let us remember what we are talking about here. Unconstitutional, 
unreasonable searches by government officials, searches which could 
include strip searches and so-called cavity searches. Mr. Chairman, 
many of these searches have been found to have been conducted pursuant 
to policies of racial profiling. A March 2000 General Accounting Office 
report found that while African Americans were nine times more likely 
to be searched than white Americans, they were no more likely to be 
found to be carrying contraband. The only way to give victims an 
effective means to stop these practices is through lawsuits. And here 
we have a bill that will throw some of these people out of court, deny 
them compensation for violations of their constitutional rights, and 
make it even less likely that these illegal searches will be stopped.
  The substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
offers a more balanced approach. Those aggrieved will still have their 
day in court, because although customs officers will still be immune 
from liability under the substitute, the Federal Government will 
ultimately be liable for violations. In cases like these, the 
government, rather than the individual officer, usually ends up paying 
the judgment anyway, so this should not be a significant burden. And 
this is a fairer alternative since the immunity is preserved but the 
person who is victimized can still be made whole, and the Federal 
Government will be encouraged to correct the practices of its 
employees.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Democratic substitute 
and, if it fails, to vote against H.R. 3129.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we pass a lot of legislation on the 
floor, and I hold very seriously what we are doing today. A lot of 
people do not understand, I think, those that listen to us, miss the 
significance of what we are doing. I support first amendment rights. 
There are certain limitations in which I think we all agree. I just sat 
through a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, which I 
am very limited in what I can say about the memo that was written by 
Mr. Williams, and the reasons why that much of the information was not 
passed forth is because of the politically correct environment, the 
liability environment, the civil liberties union going after our agents 
for things in doing their job in which their hands are tied.
  I think all of us after September 11 are living in a different world. 
Do we want people violated? No. But I will tell you, if an agent, 
whether it is DEA, whether it is customs or whether it is INS, feels 
that I am suspect due to my activities, due to suspicions or I am 
reacting a certain way, then I have no ill feelings to those 
individuals that search me. Every time I go through the airport now, 
and I do not think I look like a terrorist, although the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) says, yes, I do. I disagree with the 
gentlewoman from California. But every day that I go through the 
airport, I had a knee replacement and I have got a steel knee. I have 
to stand and spread eagle, they go through my bags, I have to take off 
my shoes and put those through the machine. Does that violate my civil 
liberties? Yes. But in the name of protection of this country, I feel 
it is very, very important. There are some inconveniences.
  Do you realize that today we have many of the people that we suspect 
as

[[Page H2865]]

being terrorists that produce pro al Qaeda and pro bin Laden 
information in Arizona that are still in those flight schools? And our 
agents cannot deport them because under the first amendment they have 
got all the rights that they can. They are recruiting individuals to go 
fight in Afghanistan to defeat the Western world. One of the things we 
need to do is these individuals before a visa is ever granted, to do a 
better background research before we ever let them in. Because once 
they get in here, we sure as heck cannot get rid of them because of our 
politically correct laws which I feel personally endanger us in this 
country.
  We had two individuals in 1999 on an airline, known al Qaeda 
supporters. One looked suspicious. The other actually went up and 
rattled the airline door, and they stopped. These individuals were 
arrested when they landed. They are now suing the airline for racial 
profiling. I guarantee you, there is some liberal judge out there that 
is going to grant them the case. My point is that if a customs agent 
feels with their professional training that there is a problem, a risk 
to American citizens, they be given the right to protect us, whether it 
is an Irish guy like myself or anyone else.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is one of my heroes. He is a 
Korean war veteran, fought for us, and we are good friends. But I think 
in this fine line of defense I would disagree with my friend from New 
York.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the previous speaker and 
certainly his service to this country, I do believe that there is value 
in the balance between civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, and the 
Constitution. I might say as well that the headline read by one of the 
speakers, ``Agencies Don't Communicate,'' goes far deeper than 
violating the civil liberties and civil rights of Americans who travel 
throughout this Nation. Let me say for once what we should be focusing 
on is very much what is transpiring in the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, but it should be going on in the Committee on Armed 
Services, it should be going on in Judiciary, Committee on 
International Relations, and a number of other committees and a select 
committee to investigate what happened in light of the July 6 memo and 
the August memo. The question is not so much as to agencies 
communicating; it is whether or not internally the memo went where it 
was supposed to go and it was acted upon, whether or not the FBI and 
the CIA communicates. This legislation does not speak to that issue.
  And so I rise to oppose this bill today in its present form, and I 
rise to support the substitute by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel). It is clear that the customs agents are to be respected and 
the work that they do is to be respected; but a violation and an 
undercutting and an undermining of civil liberties is not the solution 
to fighting terrorism. This bill would weaken protection against racial 
profiling and other illegal searches and undermine the right to privacy 
in personal correspondence.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the story of Yvette Bradley, a 33-
year-old advertising executive and her sister who arrived at Newark 
airport from a vacation in Jamaica. She is 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 of the most 
humiliating moments of her life.
  Ms. Bradley was searched throughout her body, including her private 
parts. And, of course, Mr. Chairman, no drugs or contraband was found. 
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), of course, is well aware of 
these cases, as being a strong advocate on diminishing racial profiling 
by the U.S. customs department. I too happen to be a strong supporter 
of the customs department and its agents and the responsibilities they 
have. As we have said repeatedly on this floor, there is not a thin 
line of difference between Democrats and Republicans and others on 
fighting terrorism. Interestingly enough, however, they have all of the 
provisions that they need to ensure the safety of the Nation. That is, 
the customs department and the agents. The PATRIOT Act gave a number of 
new restrictions that would assist in fighting terrorism. There is no 
need in this bill to give a pass on the Bill of Rights and the 
Constitution, the understanding of unreasonable searches and seizures. 
It is unfair. The ability to search mail more than they have now is 
unfair, and it is not a solution to terrorism.
  The 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 is 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 the invasion 
of privacy by our customs agents. It throws to the wind the ability to 
secure relief from the government if you are unfairly racially 
profiled. Mr. Chairman, it is going on right now. In spite of the 
random selection, I believe it is going on right now as we speak in our 
airports of random or racially profiled selections of individuals.
  In addition, with respect to the mail provision, I believe that the 
substitute provides us a much better offering of this legislation. I 
would ask my colleagues to support the substitute; and if that 
substitute should fail, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the bill in 
its present form, that is, H.R. 3129.

                              {time}  1430

  We must find a better way to fight terrorism. I think what we can 
begin by doing is communicating with the agencies and for the agencies 
to do their jobs.
  As I have said in the past, I have great respect for the services of 
the men and women in the Custom's service. This legislation, with the 
civil liberties protection, will further support their work.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill today in its present form 
and rise to support the substitute by Mr. Rangel. The bill would weaken 
protections against racial profiling and other illegal searches and 
undermine the right to privacy in personal correspondence. 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 of the most 
humiliating moments of her life. Ms. Bradley was searched throughout 
her body including her private parts. Mr. Chairman, 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 a solution to terrorism.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, 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,

[[Page H2866]]

not when they are boarding. Nothing in the provision limits it to 
terrorist investigations.
  Section 141 of the bill provides immunity to a Customs officer 
conducting a search of a person or property provided he or she was 
acting in ``good faith.'' The term ``good faith'' is not defined in the 
bill.
  Customs Service agents should not be provided with additional 
immunity because the Customs Service has an uneven record on racial 
profiling, it routinely conducts particularly intrusive searches, and 
has broad authority to seize property. A March 2000 General Accounting 
Office report found that while African American men and women were 
nearly nine times more likely to be searched as white American men and 
women, they were no more likely to be found carrying contraband. I do 
support the Rangel substitute which balances protecting hard working 
customs agents against liability while still allowing the grieved 
citizen the right to sue for unjust acts against them.
  Section 144, ``Border search authority for certain contraband in 
outgoing mail,'' would allow the U.S. Customs Service to open outbound 
international mail without a warrant if they have reasonable cause to 
suspect the mail contains certain contraband. Under current law, the 
Customs Service is empowered to search, without a warrant, 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.
  Section 144 would allow Customs officials to open sealed, outbound 
international mail without a warrant, without probable cause, and 
without any judicial review at all. People in the United States 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 
support the substitute of Mr. Rangel which upholds present law 
requiring a warrant before mail is searched.
  Recently, the U.S. Postal Service wrote a letter to the Chairman of 
the Financial Services Committee on the issue of searching outbound 
mail without a warrant: ``There is no evidence that eroding these long 
established privacy protections will bring any significant law 
enforcement improvements over what is achieved using existing, 
statutorily approved law enforcement techniques.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3129 because the bill 
would weaken protections against racial profiling and other illegal 
searches and undermines the right to privacy in personal 
correspondence.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), our distinguished colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time and rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the body that this bill will provide 
$10 million for the Customs Cyber-Smuggling Center. This center, along 
with FBI, does all that work that is so critical to protecting our 
children from people who lurk on the Internet in cyberspace with the 
explicit and sole goal of exploiting them for sexual purposes.
  The Internet has become not only an opportunity for all of us and for 
America, but it has also become a new venue for crime. While most 
Members are not aware of it, most of the child pornography that flows 
into America from abroad now flows in through cyberspace. So the 
Customs officials are extremely involved in preventing cyber-smuggling 
of pornographic material and stopping the cyberspace attacks on our 
children.
  The Customs officials are very skilled now at going into the chat 
rooms on our computers, following the conversations that go on there 
and spotting those individuals who are posing as young people but are 
actually adults out to lure children into meetings where they can be 
sexually exploited, or, in the tragic case of a young girl in 
Connecticut, murdered. That happened just this week.
  So the computers, their chat rooms, cyberspace, represents a new and 
terrible danger for our children. These same people used to lurk around 
school yards. That did have at least the advantage of our being able to 
see them and adults being able to report them and the police being able 
to pick them up. Now they do not have to lurk around school yards. They 
do not have to be seen visibly. They can lurk in the chat rooms that 
our children frequent and they can play on their innocence and their 
trust to build up communication with them and to give them the 
confidence to meet them. Then, when they have the meeting, when they 
get the child in their literal physical grasp, that child then is 
helpless.
  So the Customs Cyber-Smuggling Center has been on the front line of 
stemming this attack on our children, and this bill gives them $10 
million that is critical to their beefing up their staff, to their 
being more effective in intercepting conversations with children and 
preventing those critical meetings and thereby protecting our children. 
So I commend the chairman on this legislation, and particularly for 
being able to work with us and include this critical money in this 
bill.
  But I also want to address the importance of voting for the bill and 
voting against the substitute. The protection that is given to the 
Customs officials in this bill is protection that was requested by the 
Customs Department, that is wanted by the Customs officers, that was 
supported by the Treasury last time around on this bill and responds 
very deeply to their need to be protected just for doing their job.
  There are tragic stories of Customs officials carrying out their 
responsibilities, doing what they are required by law to do to protect 
us, and then being sued, left out there by the government to pay all 
their own costs of the litigation, losing their homes. There are 
terrible stories, and only because they are doing their job.
  But we encourage litigation in our society. We encourage settlement 
of suits where there has been no wrongdoing, and we leave our Customs 
officials exposed. They explicitly asked for this protection. We can do 
no less than provide it for them.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think the Rangel substitute 
does a lot to help this bill. I am in support of the Rangel substitute 
and am opposed to the bill in its current form.
  First of all, Customs officials do need protection. We do need the 
agents of the Customs department to receive protection. The government 
is the one who should feel the full brunt of this. So we want to be 
sure our Customs agents are protected.
  I do not take a second seat to anyone and I yield to no one in my 
support of the war against terrorism, but I refuse to accept government 
agents engaging in misconduct as a good faith method, in that the 
standards many times are too subjective, and we have seen it in law 
enforcement all around. We make the standards so vague and subjective 
that, when people abuse them, we are not able to bring them to task. 
These things are not grounded in the law. So we have to be very 
careful, and that is what the Rangel substitute does.
  Secondly, we do not need to expand the search that the Postal 
authorities are doing without probable cause. The Postal Service 
opposes this provision, with good reason.
  Racial profiling is too rampant and too important now. I urge my 
colleagues that when there is any hint of anything that would lead to 
impropriety or abuse of the civil rights and human rights of any 
individual, we should oppose it. Therefore, I oppose this bill, and I 
support the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill which, compared to previous versions, 
certainly has done much better for our country and does much better for 
our Customs officers, our men and women in the Customs Service. This 
bill does not try to mistreat our employees, the men and women who 
place themselves in harm's way every day to defend this country against 
terrorism, who try to interdict the drugs that many would have come 
into our country, and it treats them the way they should be treated, 
with respect, when it comes to their employment status, their salary, 
their working conditions.
  Those previous versions of the bill which would have harmed our 
Customs

[[Page H2867]]

men and women are not in this bill, and that is good. We also give 
Customs the tools it needs to be able to fight terrorism, to fight 
narcotics that would come into this country, and that is good as well.
  But for some reason this bill continues to include 2 provisions which 
under our Constitution would harm Americans, and that is bad. There is 
no reason why we should tell an American citizen that he or she is 
suspect simply because they happen to reside in this country and wish 
to send a piece of mail abroad. There is no reason why we should treat 
American citizens in their regular activities of sending correspondence 
abroad the way we treat foreign correspondence and packages that would 
come into our country.
  I can understand and most of us would understand why it is we would 
have concern in a package coming from some other country into our 
country, and perhaps, perhaps, containing a bomb, anthrax, who knows 
what else it might have. For that reason we provide that package with 
less of the type of constitutional protection that we provide all of us 
in America when it comes to our privacy.
  But when Americans are shipping something abroad, is there any reason 
why we are telling them we are going to open up their mail that goes 
abroad, open up packages, unless we have some suspicion there is reason 
to go in that?
  Right now we can open up a package that is going abroad, but we just 
have to prove there is a reason why we are going to go into the privacy 
of each and every American citizen to do so. This bill changes the 
privacy right we have had since the founding of this Nation. That is 
wrong.
  The other provision here that I believe if most Americans knew about 
it would be offensive to them is that which would allow profiling. Most 
of our Customs officers do not do this, but we have seen on occasion 
how someone is picked out of the crowd, and our numbers, our studies by 
Customs itself, have shown that the people that most often get picked, 
unfortunately, are African American women, succumbing to things like 
strip searches.
  Now our government on occasion has been subjected to lawsuits because 
of the violations of the Constitutional rights of these individuals. 
Why are we going to make that easier and why are we going to tell 
Customs officers we do not have enough faith in them and that we are 
going to go ahead and let them have an exception to the law? Why would 
we want to tell people in this country that we are going to lower the 
standard of protection for people when it comes to their civil rights, 
simply so that we can protect the bad apples?
  Everybody has a bad apple. We have bad apples in this whole 
institution. But that is no reason to say that every single officer in 
Customs is bound to violate an American citizen's rights by subjecting 
them to an unconstitutional search and seizure.
  I do not think our Customs officers have requested this. I never 
heard that in committee, that they requested this. There is no reason 
to go to the point of providing immunity to Customs officers who 
violate the Constitution. They already have a qualified immunity to 
those types of protections. Why are we going beyond what they have even 
asked for?
  In committee, when we asked the general counsel for Customs, please 
explain why you are asking this particular immunity exception to be 
applied, we could not get a good answer from the general counsel of the 
Customs Service.
  This is a good bill. Why tarnish it with something that is 
unnecessary? Of course, most people are going to vote for this because 
most people will look at the fact that we are providing additional 
resources to Customs and doing the right thing for most of our 
officers. This does not belong there. That is why you should vote for 
the substitute. A vote for the substitute gets rid of the bad and makes 
this a completely supportable bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a 
question: Do we know what a terrorist looks like? Did we know on April 
19, 1995, that a man would get in a Ryder truck and drive it into the 
Federal Building in Oklahoma? Did we know just a few short days ago 
that a young college student, the age of 21, would put pipe bombs in 
mailboxes in several Midwestern and Western States?
  Mr. Chairman, I must tell you I rise in strong opposition to the 
Customs Border Security Act of 2001, H.R. 3129. This bill threatens to 
violate and weaken the civil rights of innocent passengers by granting 
Customs officers immunity from lawsuits involving personal searches.
  H.R. 3129 would increase the chances of racial profiling and illegal 
searches. This bill will also violate personal privacy by expanding the 
power of the Customs Service to search mail leaving the United States 
without a warrant.
  While I, like many, appreciate the attempts made by the Customs 
Service to address its poor record of racial profiling of passengers, 
now is not the time to grant Customs officers immunity from lawsuits. 
Civil lawsuits against government officials and agencies are an 
important deterrent to racial profiling and unconstitutional and 
unlawful searches. 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.
  Without the possibility of a lawsuit, individuals who have been 
treated in an unconstitutional manner by a government agency would have 
no redress, and the government agents would have less incentive to 
comply with the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to protect the civil rights of 
innocent passengers and oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, is 
the authorization for the U.S. Customs Service, International Trade 
Commission and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative through 2004. We 
have included a number of critical tools for fighting terrorism, drugs 
and child pornography.

                              {time}  1445

  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 increase customs' ability to stop the flow of illegal 
drugs over our borders and into our children's hands. When this bill 
came to the floor last year, it was caught up in the general debate on 
trade and the subject of a lot of misinformation. I want to clear the 
record for Members' benefit.
  The administration was intimately involved in drafting this bill and 
requested several measures that are here. There is a provision to 
require advanced electronic manifesting on passengers and cargo so that 
the Customs Service can have advanced notice of who is in planes and 
what is on ships about to land on American soil. This provision has 
attracted the most attention recently, as many agencies of the 
government, especially law enforcement and intelligence, currently 
obtain information through customs. It is clear that customs will be 
requiring more information in the future for antiterrorist efforts. It 
is equally clear that customs is the logical place to house the current 
and future data collection system that must interface with importers 
and carriers of all kinds. Through better and quicker information, the 
Federal Government can prevent crimes and keep our economy alive with 
the critical flow of trade.
  Similarly, we seek to give our customs inspectors some protection, 
considering that 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. For those who act in good 
faith, inspectors should not have to be afraid of frivolous lawsuits, 
so we are proposing that they have immunity against such lawsuits 
unless they wrongly use race, ethnicity, religion, or gender to profile 
passengers. At the committee markup, administration officials testified 
that they had drafted this provision and support it. The union 
representatives of the customs inspectors have specifically written in 
support of this provision. They make a strong case, and Congress should 
pass this provision.

[[Page H2868]]

  The administration also requested that customs be able to search 
outgoing mail because the U.S. mail is often used to transmit laundered 
money out of the country. I want to assure members of the committee 
that we looked carefully at the privacy issues involved here and 
believe we adequately addressed them in this legislation. Our bill 
preserves our cherished fourth amendment rights against unwarranted 
search by requiring that no letter may be read by customs officers 
unless a valid warrant is obtained, just like current law with respect 
to inbound mail. Remember, money from illegal activities is what leads 
us to terrorists and drug smugglers.
  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. We add $10 million 
for the Customs Cyber-smuggling Center. This legislation also contains 
authorization for funding for customs' new automation, the Automated 
Commercial Environment.
  Mr. Chairman, 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. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Latino community I urge 
my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act, and 
to strongly support the Rangel substitute. H.R. 3129 will expand 
Federal authority for U.S. Customs officers by granting them expanded 
``good faith'' immunity. Expanding Customs officers' immunity would 
only undermine the civil rights of many individuals who would be left 
without recourse to remedy unconstitutional and discriminatory 
searches, particularly when this agency has a history of targeting 
minorities. The Rangel substitute correctly addresses the racial 
profiling concerns while ensuring that customs inspectors are not 
liable for monetary damages in civil suits involving personal searches. 
The U.S. government would consent to be sued and to be held liable for 
civil damages for suits brought in connection with a wrongful personal 
search.
  According to a Customs Service study conducted in fiscal year 1998, 
almost half of the people searched by customs were Latino or African-
American, although the contraband produced by the searches was lower 
for minorities than for whites. Another study by the GAO in March 2000 
revealed that black female U.S. citizens were nine times more likely to 
be subjected to X-ray searches by U.S. Customs officials than their 
white counterparts, although black women were less than half as likely 
to be found carrying contraband as white women.
  There is also no reason why Customs needs expanded authority to 
search outgoing international mail without a warrant. We inspect mail 
that comes into the country because we do not know what it might 
contain. But the interests in outgoing mail are not the same and do not 
warrant invading our privacy. The Postal Service opposes this 
provision. Customs has every right to inspect mail by getting a search 
warrant. There is no need to change current law. The Rangel substitute 
also addresses the inspection of outbound mail.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute and, if it 
fails, to vote no on H.R. 3129 because it will weaken protections 
against racial profiling, thus undermining the civil rights of many 
people and support the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, Customs currently can do border searches of 
everything that enters or leaves the United States--with one exception: 
outbound mail shipped by the U.S. Postal Service.
  The U.S. Customs Service should be able to inspect merchandise that 
is exiting the United States through the U.S. Postal Service--just like 
it can inspect all merchandise that enters the United States through 
the Postal Service. [19 U.S.C. Section 482; 19 U.S.C. Section 1581; 19 
U.S.C. Section 1582; 19 C.F.R., Part 145; 19 C.F.R., Part 162]
  Existing law enables the U.S. Customs Service to inspect merchandise 
exiting the United States via any mode of transportation--including 
truck, ship, car, airplane, private express carrier, or person. [22 
U.S.C. Section 401; 22 U.S.C. Section 2778; 31 U.S.C. Section 5317; 50 
U.S.C. App. Section 2411]
  The Postal Service claims that it is exempt from these laws--making 
it the only mode of export for which Customs cannot inspect outbound 
merchandise. In fact, the Postal Authority not only refuses to 
cooperate with the Customs Service, but they openly resist their 
efforts to carry out their statutory obligations.
  Customs' inspection of outbound and inbound merchandise is 
Constitutional. Under the Constitution, the Customs Service has 
outbound and inbound border search authority for all merchandise, 
including that carrier on or in any airplane, vessel, vehicle, person, 
package, or envelope departing or entering the United States. Neither 
the Fourth Amendment nor any statute prohibits Customs from inspecting 
outbound merchandise. [See, e.g. California Bankers Assn. v. Schultz, 
416 U.S. 21 (1973). United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). 
United States v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1985). United States 
v. Whiting, 781 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1986). United States v. Berisha, 925 
F.2d 791 (5th Cir. 1991).]
  Furthermore, courts have upheld Customs' general border search 
authority and, in particular, over inbound mail and outbound shipments. 
These decisions support Congress acting to affirm Customs' authority. 
[See United States v. Ramsey; United States v. Berisha; United States 
v. Ezeiruaku, 936 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Cardona; 
United States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1983)]
  The general public may not know about the inability of Customs to 
effectively search outbound merchandise, but others do. Some 
enterprising sellers of illegal drugs have even boldly stated on their 
internet site that mail-order customers should use the mails to avoid 
inspections.

       Do not use UPS, Federal Express, or any other overnight 
     express service, as customs may look at it. Regular mail 
     (registered, if you like) is anonymous and safe.

  Recent Congressional testimony of Customs pointed to the lack of 
export examination requirements as to USPS shipments as the ``greatest 
enforcement stumbling blocks,'' creating ``a money launderer's dream-
come-true.'' [Testimony, U.S. Customs Service, House of Representatives 
Committee on Government Reform, Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human 
Resources Subcommittee Hearing, May 26, 2000.]
  Customs testimony at this hearing pointed out that not just money 
laundering is involved, that this ``loophole literally creates a haven 
for smugglers of all kinds. A flawed system such as this can facilitate 
many other illegal exports and in-transit shipments such as child 
pornography, items or materials to be used in terrorist attacks, 
weapons, sensitive military or high tech products not licensed for 
exportation . . .''
  The Postal Service's position is clearly anti-law enforcement and 
allows the U.S. Postal Service to be the outbound smuggling method of 
choice for drug cartels and other criminal entities. No public policy 
is served by exempting outbound Postal Service shipments of merchandise 
from Customs' inspection. I urge the membership to give this 
legislation the strongest vote of confidence.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3129, the Customs 
Border Security Act. I want to thank Chairman Thomas and Crane for 
working with me to address my concerns for improving staffing and 
equipment on the Northern Border.
  Almost two years ago, Customs personnel were able to apprehend a 
terrorist at Blaine, Washington. This action helped prevent a terrorist 
act against our nation. Today, we face greater threats of terrorism and 
we need to better protect our borders, especially our Northern Border.
  For this reason, I am pleased that this bill authorizes more funding 
to hire approximately 285 additional Customs Service officers to 
protect the borders and ports along the U.S.-Canadian border. This 
legislation also increases equipment for the Customs Service to 
expedite the movement of goods and passengers on our Northern Border.
  Over the past few years, Washington State has seen an increase in 
trade and passenger traffic on the U.S.-Canadian Border. In 1999, trade 
between Washington State and Canada has grown approximately $19 
billion. Furthermore, we have seen a growth in the cruise industry in 
Seattle. Unfortunately, we had to deny ships from visiting Seattle 
because of insufficient Customs officers to inspect them.
  The increases in staff and equipment in this bill are positive steps 
towards a comprehensive and sustained effort to better protect the 
Northern Border from potential terrorist activities, and improve the 
flow of goods and traffic between the U.S. and Canada. I ask my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce my opposition to the 
underlying bill that we consider today. It is a near certainty that the 
substitute amendment offered by my colleague from California (Ms. 
Waters) will not be approved, and without the improvements contained in 
her amendment, there is little choice for me but to vote against this 
bill.
  Last December, I voted against this bill's passage when it was 
considered under suspension of rules. I did so because I objected to a 
provision in that bill that would have provided immunity to customs 
officers for personal searches at border locations, as long as the 
officers follow agency guidelines. That was too broad an exemption.

[[Page H2869]]

  I share the view of many in this chamber that the men and women who 
make up the U.S. Customs Service are good and hard working people, 
dedicated to performing their jobs and committed to protecting the 
safety of this country's borders. Nowhere is the dedication of U.S. 
Customs Service personnel exemplified more than at Detroit's ports of 
entry.
  Unfortunately, inspection abuses have occurred and civil rights have 
been violated. The grant of immunity provided in the earlier bill asked 
that the constitutional rights of Americans be surrendered at the 
border. I opposed passage of H.R. 3129 last December, and I oppose its 
passage today for the very same reasons.
  I have dedicated my entire life to the advancement of civil rights 
under civil law. To vote for this bill as it is presently configured 
would require me to suppress a deep-seated core value that I hold dear. 
There are times when many in this chamber put aside their personal 
values in order to advance causes and issues that provide for the 
greater good. This is not one of those times.
  This bill has the potential of short circuiting the civil liberties 
of Americans and international visitors who step on to U.S. soil from 
international ports. By doing so, we are compromising on the values 
that make up part of the American character and surrendering the 
protections guaranteed to us under the constitution. I cannot in good 
conscience surrender my convictions to protect the civil liberties of 
all Americans and those that come to this country. For that reason I 
oppose the passage of this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as the original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
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--Personnel Provisions

 Chapter 1--Overtime And Premium Pay of Officers of the Customs Service

Sec. 121. Correction relating to fiscal year cap.
Sec. 122. Correction relating to overtime pay.
Sec. 123. Correction relating to premium pay.
Sec. 124. Use of savings from payment of premium pay.
Sec. 125. Effective date.

                  Chapter 2--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 131. Additional Customs Service officers for United States-Canada 
              border.
Sec. 132. Study and report relating to personnel practices of the 
              Customs Service.
Sec. 133. Study and report relating to accounting and auditing 
              procedures of the Customs Service.
Sec. 134. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system; 
              reports.
Sec. 135. Study and report relating to timeliness of prospective 
              rulings.
Sec. 136. Study and report relating to Customs user fees.

                  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) $886,513,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $909,471,000 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) $1,603,482,000 for fiscal year 2002.''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $1,645,009,000 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 Agreements 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.

[[Page H2870]]

       (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 sections 111 and 112 
     of this Act.

    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--Personnel Provisions

 CHAPTER 1--OVERTIME AND PREMIUM PAY OF OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE

     SEC. 121. CORRECTION RELATING TO FISCAL YEAR CAP.

       Section 5(c)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     267(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Fiscal year cap.--The aggregate of overtime pay under 
     subsection (a) (including commuting compensation under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)) that a customs officer may be paid in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed $30,000, except that--
       ``(A) the Commissioner of Customs or his or her designee 
     may waive this limitation in individual cases in order to 
     prevent excessive costs or to meet emergency requirements of 
     the Customs Service; and
       ``(B) upon certification by the Commissioner of Customs to 
     the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     that the Customs Service has in operation a system that 
     provides accurate and reliable data on a daily basis on 
     overtime and premium pay that is being paid to customs 
     officers, the Commissioner is authorized to pay any customs 
     officer for one work assignment that would result in the 
     overtime pay of that officer exceeding the $30,000 limitation 
     imposed by this paragraph, in addition to any overtime pay 
     that may be received pursuant to a waiver under subparagraph 
     (A).''.

     SEC. 122. CORRECTION RELATING TO OVERTIME PAY.

       Section 5(a)(1) of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 
     267(a)(1)), is amended by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following new sentences: ``Overtime pay provided under 
     this subsection shall not be paid to any customs officer 
     unless such officer actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such overtime pay. The preceding sentence 
     shall not apply with respect to the payment of an award or 
     settlement to a customs officer who was unable to perform 
     overtime work as a result of a personnel action in violation 
     of section 5596 of title 5, United States Code, section 6(d) 
     of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or title VII of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964.''.

     SEC. 123. CORRECTION RELATING TO PREMIUM PAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(b)(4) of the Act of February 13, 
     1911 (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(4)), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentences: ``Premium pay provided under 
     this subsection shall not be paid to any customs officer 
     unless such officer actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such premium pay. The preceding sentence 
     shall not apply with respect to the payment of an award or 
     settlement to a customs officer who was unable to perform 
     work during the time described in the preceding sentence as a 
     result of a personnel action in violation of section 5596 of 
     title 5, United States Code, section 6(d) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938, or title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964.''.
       (b) Corrections Relating to Night Work Differential Pay.--
     Section 5(b)(1) of such Act (19 U.S.C. 267(b)(1)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) Night work differential.--
       ``(A) 5 p.m. to midnight.--(i) If any hours of regularly 
     scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of 
     5 p.m. and 12 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such 
     hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) 
     applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus 
     premium pay amounting to not less than 18 percent of that 
     basic rate.
       ``(ii) If the regularly scheduled work of a customs officer 
     is 4 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for 
     work during such period (except for work to which paragraph 
     (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay 
     plus premium pay amounting to not less than 18 percent of 
     that basic rate.
       ``(B) Midnight to 6 a.m.--(i) If any hours of regularly 
     scheduled work of a customs officer occur during the hours of 
     12 a.m. and 6 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for such 
     hours of work (except for work to which paragraph (2) or (3) 
     applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay plus 
     premium pay amounting to 25 percent of that basic rate.
       ``(ii) If the regularly scheduled work of a customs officer 
     is 12 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., the officer is entitled to pay for 
     work during such period (except for work to which paragraph 
     (2) or (3) applies) at the officer's hourly rate of basic pay 
     plus premium pay amounting to 25 percent of that basic 
     rate.''.

     SEC. 124. USE OF SAVINGS FROM PAYMENT OF PREMIUM PAY.

       Section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 267), 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Use of Savings From Payment of Premium Pay.--
       ``(1) Use of amounts.--For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury--
       ``(A) shall determine under paragraph (2) the amount of 
     savings from the payment of premium pay to customs officers; 
     and

[[Page H2871]]

       ``(B) shall use an amount from the Customs User Fee Account 
     equal to such amount determined under paragraph (2) for 
     additional premium pay described in clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Determination of savings amount.--The Secretary shall 
     calculate an amount equal to the difference between--
       ``(A) the estimated cost for premium pay that would have 
     been incurred during fiscal year 2002 if this section, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of section 
     123 of the Customs Border Security Act of 2001, had governed 
     such costs; and
       ``(B) the actual cost for premium pay that is incurred 
     during fiscal year 2002 under this section, as amended by 
     section 123 of the Customs Border Security Act of 2001.''.

     SEC. 125. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This chapter, and the amendments made by this chapter, 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods beginning on or after 
     15 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                  CHAPTER 2--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 131. 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. 
     2075(b)), as amended by section 101 of this Act, $25,000,000 
     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. 132. 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. 133. 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. 134. 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. 135. 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. 136. 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.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

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

       (a) Immunity.--Section 3061 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (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 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 cargo 
     manifest information in advance of such entry or clearance 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 MANIFEST 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

[[Page H2872]]

     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 manifest 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), 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, as applicable;
       ``(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 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.

[[Page H2873]]

       (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.''.

                    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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 107-482. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 107-482.
  Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) continue to be the 
designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)?
  Mr. CRANE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Crane

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Crane:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Customs Border Security Act 
     of 2002''.

     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.
Sec. 128. National Customs Automation Program.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

Sec. 141. Immunity for United States officials that act in good faith.

[[Page H2874]]

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.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $1,365,456,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) $1,399,592,400 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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.'';
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $1,642,602,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $1,683,667,050 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (2) Automated commercial environment computer system.--Of 
     the amount made available for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2004 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) $177,860,000 for fiscal year 2002.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $170,829,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) $175,099,725 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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).

[[Page H2875]]

       (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. 
     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) In General.--Section 13031(b)(9) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(b)(9)) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``the 
     processing of merchandise that is informally entered or 
     released'' and inserting ``the processing of letters, 
     documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or any other item 
     that is valued at an amount under $2,000 (or such higher 
     amount as the Secretary may set by regulation pursuant to 
     section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930), whether or not such 
     items are informally entered or released (except items 
     entered or released for immediate exportation),''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) In the case of an express consignment carrier 
     facility or centralized hub facility, $.66 per individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading.''.
       (2) By redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B)(i) For fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may adjust (not more than once 
     per fiscal year) the amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     to not less than $.35 but not more than $1.00 per individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading. The Secretary shall provide 
     notice in the Federal Register of a proposed adjustment under 
     the preceding sentence and the reasons therefor and shall 
     allow for public comment on the proposed adjustment.
       ``(ii) The payment required by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 
     be the only payment required for reimbursement of the Customs 
     Service in connection with the processing of an individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading in accordance with such 
     subparagraph, except that the Customs Service may charge a 
     fee to cover expenses of the Customs Service for adequate 
     office space, equipment, furnishings, supplies, and security.
       ``(iii)(I) The payment required by subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
     clause (ii) shall be paid on a quarterly basis to the Customs 
     Service in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(II) 50 percent of the amount of payments received under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) and clause (ii) shall, in accordance 
     with section 524 of the Tariff Act of 1930, be deposited as a 
     refund to the appropriation for the amount paid out of that 
     appropriation for the costs incurred in providing services to 
     express consignment carrier facilities or centralized hub 
     facilities. Amounts deposited in accordance

[[Page H2876]]

     with the preceding sentence shall be available until expended 
     for the provision of customs services to express consignment 
     carrier facilities or centralized hub facilities.
       ``(III) Notwithstanding section 524 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930, the remaining 50 percent of the amount of payments 
     received under subparagraph (A)(ii) and clause (ii) shall be 
     paid to the Secretary of the Treasury, which is in lieu of 
     the payment of fees under subsection (a)(10) of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 128. NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTOMATION PROGRAM.

       Section 411(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1411(b)) is amended by striking the second sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The Secretary may, by regulation, 
     require the electronic submission of information described in 
     subsection (a) or any other information required to be 
     submitted to the Customs Service separately pursuant to this 
     subpart.''.

                  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)(A) 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.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall cooperate with other appropriate 
     Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of providing 
     to such departments and agencies as soon as practicable cargo 
     manifest information obtained pursuant to subparagraph (A). 
     In carrying out the preceding sentence, the Secretary, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, shall protect the privacy and 
     property rights with respect to the cargo involved.''.
       (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) Sharing of Information.--The Secretary shall 
     cooperate with other appropriate Federal departments and 
     agencies for the purpose of providing to such departments and 
     agencies as soon as practicable electronic transmission 
     information obtained pursuant to subsection (a). In carrying 
     out the preceding sentence, the Secretary, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, shall protect the privacy rights of the 
     person with respect to which the information relates.''.
       (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.

[[Page H2877]]

       ``(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 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.'';
       (C) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $32,300,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $33,108,000 for fiscal year 2004.''; 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:

[[Page H2878]]

       ``(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) $51,440,000 for fiscal year 2002.'';
       (2) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $54,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $57,240,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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.''.

                    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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The substitute increases authorization funding levels at section 101, 
including earmark for resources at northern border at section 131, new 
section 121. It extends authorization through 2004. It deletes sections 
121 through 125 concerning customs officer pay changes, and renumbers. 
It adds new section 127 to change customs' fees for couriers to a fixed 
fee structure. It clarifies in section 143 that advanced electronic 
manifest requirements applies only to inbound cargo, as provisions to 
require sharing of information collected by customs to other government 
agencies.
  It clarifies in section 143 that advanced information for passengers 
and crew is not intended to create new immigration requirements. 
Specifically, the Secretary can demand passport and visa information 
only if such a requirement to have a passport or visa already applies 
to the passenger or crew.
  Mr. Chairman, these provisions are designed to make the bill 
stronger. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Thomas substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), our distinguished colleague.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill today, 
the manager's amendment, the substitute by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas). H.R. 3129 will provide customs with better 
tools to protect America's borders during this time of war. But 
specifically, I would like to highlight some of the provisions for the 
textile industry.
  Illegal transshipments are some of the most critical issues facing 
our domestic textile industry, and it is one of the issues that I said 
should be a part of any debate on trade. I want to thank the chairman 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for their willingness to 
work with me and other Members and with the textile industry to address 
this growing problem of illegal textile transshipments.
  Without question, one of the greatest threats to our domestic textile 
industry is the illegal shipment of textile and apparel goods from 
ports around the world. Our domestic industry can compete on a level 
playing field, but they cannot compete against a flood of illegal 
imports. This bill will go far in helping to address the problem. It 
adds $9.5 million to fight textile transshipment through added staff 
dedicated to specific geographic areas such as Hong Kong, India, Korea, 
Mexico, and the Middle East. It includes an additional 50 new staff, 
including investigators and inspectors.
  By no means will this solve every problem, but it will be very 
helpful in fighting the problems of illegal transshipments; and I urge 
my colleagues' support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad that this bill has within it the language 
regarding transshipment that has been mentioned by the distinguished 
gentleman who spoke before me. I do want to point out, however, that 
this bill is strictly an authorization; and unless there is an 
appropriation to carry it out, the language would not be meaningful.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge our colleagues on a good, 
strong, bipartisan basis to support this substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Crane).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in House Report 107-482.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by ms. waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) the designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)?
  Ms. WATERS. Yes, I am.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Ms. 
     Waters:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Customs Border Security Act 
     of 2002''.

     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.

[[Page H2879]]

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.
Sec. 128. National Customs Automation Program.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

Sec. 141. Exclusive remedy for personal search claims.
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. 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.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $1,365,456,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) $1,399,592,400 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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.'';
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $1,642,602,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $1,683,667,050 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (2) Automated commercial environment computer system.--Of 
     the amount made available for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2004 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) $177,860,000 for fiscal year 2002.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) $170,829,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) $175,099,725 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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.

[[Page H2880]]

       (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. 
     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) In General.--Section 13031(b)(9) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(b)(9)) is amended as follows:
       (1) In subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``the 
     processing of merchandise that is informally entered or 
     released'' and inserting ``the processing of letters, 
     documents, records, shipments, merchandise, or any other item 
     that is valued at an amount under $2,000 (or such higher 
     amount as the Secretary may set by regulation pursuant to 
     section 498 of the Tariff Act of 1930), whether or not such 
     items are informally entered or released (except items 
     entered or released for immediate exportation),''; and
       (B) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) In the case of an express consignment carrier 
     facility or centralized hub facility, $.66 per individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading.''.
       (2) By redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

[[Page H2881]]

       ``(B)(i) For fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may adjust (not more than once 
     per fiscal year) the amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) 
     to not less than $.35 but not more than $1.00 per individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading. The Secretary shall provide 
     notice in the Federal Register of a proposed adjustment under 
     the preceding sentence and the reasons therefor and shall 
     allow for public comment on the proposed adjustment.
       ``(ii) The payment required by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 
     be the only payment required for reimbursement of the Customs 
     Service in connection with the processing of an individual 
     airway bill or bill of lading in accordance with such 
     subparagraph, except that the Customs Service may charge a 
     fee to cover expenses of the Customs Service for adequate 
     office space, equipment, furnishings, supplies, and security.
       ``(iii)(I) The payment required by subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
     clause (ii) shall be paid on a quarterly basis to the Customs 
     Service in accordance with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(II) 50 percent of the amount of payments received under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) and clause (ii) shall, in accordance 
     with section 524 of the Tariff Act of 1930, be deposited as a 
     refund to the appropriation for the amount paid out of that 
     appropriation for the costs incurred in providing services to 
     express consignment carrier facilities or centralized hub 
     facilities. Amounts deposited in accordance with the 
     preceding sentence shall be available until expended for the 
     provision of customs services to express consignment carrier 
     facilities or centralized hub facilities.
       ``(III) Notwithstanding section 524 of the Tariff Act of 
     1930, the remaining 50 percent of the amount of payments 
     received under subparagraph (A)(ii) and clause (ii) shall be 
     paid to the Secretary of the Treasury, which is in lieu of 
     the payment of fees under subsection (a)(10) of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     take effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 128. NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTOMATION PROGRAM.

       Section 411(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
     1411(b)) is amended by striking the second sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The Secretary may, by regulation, 
     require the electronic submission of information described in 
     subsection (a) or any other information required to be 
     submitted to the Customs Service separately pursuant to this 
     subpart.''.

                  Subtitle D--Antiterrorism Provisions

     SEC. 141. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PERSONAL SEARCH CLAIMS.

       (a) Exclusive Remedy.--Section 3061 of the Revised Statutes 
     of the United States (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) The remedy against the United States for claims 
     arising from the search of a person made pursuant to 
     subsection (a) by any officer or employee of the Federal 
     government while acting within the scope of his office or 
     employment is exclusive of any other civil action or 
     proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject 
     matter against the employee whose act or omission gave rise 
     to the claim or against the estate of such employee. The 
     United States shall be liable for any such claim, and any 
     other civil action or proceeding for money damages arising 
     out of or relating to the same subject matter against the 
     employee or the employees estate is precluded without regard 
     to when the act or omission occurred.''.
       (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)(A) 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.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall cooperate with other appropriate 
     Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of providing 
     to such departments and agencies as soon as practicable cargo 
     manifest information obtained pursuant to subparagraph (A). 
     In carrying out the preceding sentence, the Secretary, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, shall protect the privacy and 
     property rights with respect to the cargo involved.''.
       (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) Sharing of Information.--The Secretary shall 
     cooperate with other appropriate Federal departments and 
     agencies for the purpose of providing to such departments and 
     agencies as soon as practicable electronic transmission 
     information obtained pursuant to subsection (a). In carrying 
     out the preceding sentence, the Secretary, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, shall protect the privacy rights of the 
     person with respect to which the information relates.''.
       (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. 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 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

[[Page H2882]]

       (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.'';
       (C) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $32,300,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $33,108,000 for fiscal year 2004.''; 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) $51,440,000 for fiscal year 2002.'';
       (2) in clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) $54,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) $57,240,000 for fiscal year 2004.''.
       (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.''.

                    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

[[Page H2883]]

     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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this substitute because the 
legislation, H.R. 3129, as introduced, needlessly expands the scope of 
Federal authority and threatens the protection of civil rights by 
granting broad search immunity to customs agents and by allowing 
warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail.
  We have said over and over again that we support efforts to give 
protection to customs agents; and when they talk to the Members of 
Congress about their need for protection, they were not in any way 
saying that they did not have some immunity. What they were saying is 
they wanted to get through the courts faster.
  This bill goes far too far, and it is unfortunate that the majority 
has not been able to discuss or compromise on the critical issues of 
racial profiling and privacy that are raised in this legislation.
  This substitute does address those civil liberties questions and 
retains the portion of the bill that fairly addresses issues of border 
security.
  It has been consistently stated by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) and others that the existing doctrine of qualified immunity 
shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil 
damages if their conduct does not violate any clearly established 
statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person should 
have known. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the 
reasonableness of an officer's behavior, not the subjective good-faith 
standard used in this legislation, is the proper test for liability.
  What the Customs Service has complained about is the pace of trial 
through the Federal courts. Bluntly stated, they want the cases against 
their agents disposed of faster, like every other civil litigant in the 
country. This bill's response in section 141 is the creation of a broad 
category of immunity, unavailable to any other law enforcement officer.
  That provision is both unnecessary and dangerous to the rights of the 
public who deserve their day in court to protect against racial 
profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the 
Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies.
  It is important to note that the Customs Service has argued that 
section 141 of this legislation would apply retroactively and result in 
the dismissal of a host of lawsuits, many of which were brought by 
African American women, who are contesting the legality of disparate, 
intrusive searches documented by the GAO. When viewed in that light, 
this provision looks less like a tool to address terrorism than a broom 
to sweep away troublesome cases that raise issues of questionable 
conduct and policy.
  The substitute replaces section 141's grant of immunity with an 
exclusive remedy against the government for the actions of customs 
agents who act within the scope of their authority. This compromise 
fairly balances the interest of customs agents who follow policy with 
the interests of those aggrieved persons who have been the victim of 
questionable searches.
  With respect to privacy interests, the authors of this bill have 
completely failed to make a case for weakening the legal standard for 
the search of U.S. mail. Under current law, the Customs Service is 
empowered to search, without a warrant, inbound mail handled by the 
United States Postal Service and packages and letters handled by 
private carriers such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service.

                              {time}  1500

  The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons, 
shipments, drugs, or other contraband inbound or outbound 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 
the package while they wait for the court to issue a warrant.
  The U.S. Postal Service has even taken the position that there is no 
evidence that eroding these long-established privacy protections will 
bring any significant law enforcement improvements over what is 
achieved using existing statutorily approved law enforcement 
techniques.
  In short, experts from the postal service have determined that this 
provision is unnecessary. As we search for increased security, we must 
remain mindful of the fact that our civil liberties are a precious 
resource, and ensure that freedom is not a casualty.
  We believe the Rangel substitute strikes the appropriate balance 
between civil liberties and security by correcting deficiencies in H.R. 
3129 as introduced, because increased security should not come at the 
cost of our constitutional rights.
  Of course, I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Rangel substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Crane) opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. CRANE. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), our distinguished colleague from the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on 
this bill. I strongly oppose the substitute and strongly support the 
base bill.
  Are we giving up freedoms and liberties in this bill? Absolutely not. 
But when we have looked at what has happened in this country since 
September 11, I think it is incumbent upon us to strengthen the laws of 
this country and strengthen the rights of our agents to inspect 
packages that come. We lost a constituent in Palm Beach County through 
anthrax. We have lost a lot of relatives and family in the World Trade 
Center, and in the plane that went down in Pennsylvania.
  Every time we start looking at tightening our borders and 
strengthening our integrity and our system, we hear these charges of 
civil rights abuse and civil rights violations. What about 2,800-and-
some Americans who died in New York? What about their civil rights?
  We have to protect our borders. This bill does that. I do not mean to 
be outraged, but I am at times, because I cannot understand, when we 
are protecting our own borders, when people are coming into this 
country as our guests, that we do not have the right to search them 
thoroughly, whether they are U.S. citizens or guests from other 
nations.
  In order to protect domestic tranquility, we must work to focus our 
efforts to make certain that we do not hamstring our Customs agents, 
our mail inspectors, from being able to thoroughly search that evidence 
which may make its way into the country. Ships that come into the ports 
should be thoroughly screened.
  We do this in this bill. We provide the mechanism and means, since we 
are asking for manifests before the flights and cargo arrive, so we can 
thoroughly screen it. We are giving $24 million for Florida and other 
Gulf Coast seaports.

[[Page H2884]]

Florida has already been a leader in the Nation on this issue. This 
bill will provide technology to continue this work.
  We also authorize a very important $10 million for child 
cybersmuggling, which gives the money towards the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children for its operation at the child 
pornography tip line. We strengthen our borders in Mexico and we 
strengthen our borders in the north, in Canada. We are not targeting 
any group. We are not racially profiling. We are providing security and 
protection for the United States citizens of this country.
  I suspect there will be acrimony on this debate. This is the first 
time since 1992 we have reauthorized the U.S. Customs Service, the 
oldest law enforcement agency in our country. I am certain there are a 
lot of people having vigorous debates on civil liberties and civil 
rights. I do not disagree that we have to be careful not to tread on 
the basic premises of our Constitution.
  But we are at war. We have people who have threatened the integrity 
of this country. We have people who have destroyed the fabric of our 
communities through fear, intimidation, and through reckless disregard 
for human life. We have packages that could come in this country that 
could destroy our ports. So I think we have to be more proactive. I 
think we have to give them the tools. I think we have to provide for 
them some legal protection so they can make the appropriate search.
  If we are to wait for a court to rule on every package that comes in 
this country through the U.S. mail service, or by virtue of a person 
carrying it across our borders, we will forever jeopardizes the safety 
and integrity of this country. The courts do not move that fast, they 
do not operate that quickly. What we are trying to do is provide a 
level of protection for our citizens. I think it is high time we do.
  I salute the committee for its hard work on this bill, and the 
chairman, and I salute the many Members that I believe will vote for 
this, because it provides, finally, the tools I think we need to not 
only protect our borders, but to protect our people.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California, 
my friend, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute is very simple, because for the most 
part, as I believe most of us have said earlier, this bill is actually 
a very good bill. It just has two provisions which are heinous, which 
go against our Constitution. If most Americans would have an 
opportunity to examine this, they would say that this does not belong 
here.
  The first provision grants an exception to our privacy rights to 
allow Customs, without ever having to go after a search warrant, 
without ever having to show probable cause, to open up American 
citizens' mail. This is a provision which they could not substantiate. 
They could not explain why it was so essential.
  I think everyone understands why there is that exception for incoming 
foreign mail into this country. No one would argue that. But when it 
comes to Americans and the mail we send abroad, why is it so essential 
that Mrs. Jones' mail to her mother, who happens to live in the 
Netherlands, has to be opened without having to go through some 
scrutiny, legal scrutiny, to determine if it is fair or not for Mrs. 
Jones' mail to be opened without her consent?
  We can do it if we just go through the regular course of getting a 
warrant, showing probable cause to open up Mrs. Jones' mail. But why 
all of a sudden do we want to be able to have exceptions?
  Remember, just 6 months ago, we passed some laws that gave law 
enforcement much greater authority as a result of trying to deal with 
terrorism. But to just undo the mechanisms that we have in place to 
ensure that we are adequately protected from abusive officials does not 
seem to be right.
  The second provision, which again would mostly target African 
American women, and that is not conjecture, that is a fact. The General 
Accounting Office in 2000 found that not only are African American 
women stopped and searched more often, but it is 9 times more often 
than their counterparts, Anglo or white women counterparts, 9 times 
more often. Guess what? It also happens to be the case that those 
African American women are half as likely to contain contraband as 
white women, American women.
  So while the group that is most targeted is least likely to possess 
contraband, they are the ones who are most targeted. How does that make 
sense? When one has had their rights violated, rights under the 
Constitution, why should we not be able to go out there and seek 
justice, seek redress?
  This substitute says you cannot go after monetary damage, but it also 
does not say forget about the constitutional rights, you also cannot go 
after that rogue official who went after you.
  Most of our officials within Customs are excellent officers. Several 
have died in the line of duty. I know the person who stopped the 
suspected terrorist from coming down to Los Angeles and bombing, or 
rigging bombs at the Los Angeles International Airport, my airport, was 
a Customs officer in the State of Washington.
  They do tremendous work. Why do we have to paint all of them with the 
broad brush and believe that they are all going to be bad apples or 
rogue officers and do these bad things? When there is one that does it, 
why deny us the chance to seek a constitutionally protected right?
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would engage with me in 
a brief colloquy. I have a concern that has also been raised as to 
whether or not this provision, section 141 in the law, is actually 
retroactive, which would mean that previous bad acts by officials would 
also be exempted from action if this legislation were to become law.
  I guess if we had to pass this, at least let us make it forward-
looking, so officers are now on alert.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to 
entertain a brief colloquy. I am concerned that this legislation, as I 
believe Customs is trying to profess, would be retroactive. But as I 
read section 141, there is nothing in the provision that says that this 
will apply to previous conduct of Customs officials. I would hope the 
chairman would clarify whether or not this law is indeed retroactive.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is absolutely 
not retroactive.
  Mr. BECERRA. It is not retroactive. I thank the chairman for that 
answer, and I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do everything we can to give our law 
enforcement men and women the tools they need. This bill does a lot to 
go that route of giving them the resources, the tools they need.
  One of the tools they do not need is the ability to violate the 
Constitution. One of the tools they do not need is the ability to 
violate our privacy rights. I don't believe any officer from Customs 
would stand here and say that is what I want.
  I can understand if they are saying we want to have any frivolous 
lawsuit against our conduct while engaging in the scope of our 
authority, that that should not be appropriate; that those lawsuits 
while they were acting in the scope of their authority should not be 
appropriate. Those frivolous lawsuits, absolutely.
  In fact, this substitute has language which, as I said before, would 
not permit monetary damages against a law enforcement official acting 
within his scope of authority.
  So I would hope that the Members of this body will recognize that 
this substitute is reasonable, it is sensibly based, and it tries to go 
after the problem that Customs tried to identify, which completely 
missed in providing some exceptions to constitutional law which have no 
place in this good legislation.
  I would hope that my colleagues, as they come down, would recognize 
that. We want to do everything we can to elevate our good officers, but 
there is no reason to protect the bad apples. I would hope that Members 
would vote for the substitute.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

[[Page H2885]]

  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I believe that some 
of the statements that have been made in the course of this debate, 
while well-intentioned, have been bordering on outrageous. I would like 
to correct some of the record.
  My particular involvement in this has been as chair of the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources in 
the Committee on Government Reform, where we have authorizing and 
oversight authority on the drug issues, which has led me into the 
border issues whenever we talk about drugs.
  The reason our subcommittee also has jurisdiction over commerce is it 
leads us into trade. The reason we have jurisdiction over Justice is it 
leads us into immigration.
  We have held 6 hearings since September 11, 3 on the north border, 3 
on the south border, in addition to myself visiting many of these water 
crossings, as well as staff doing additional border crossings. So far, 
we have held hearings on the Vermont and upstate New York borders, we 
have held hearings in the Washington State corridor with Seattle, and 
in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, as well as in San Diego and as 
well as in Douglas, Arizona, on both borders.
  I have also been to relatively obscure sights like Fortuna and 
Portal, North Dakota, where if you wanted to get a judge to clear 
something, you would have something in the vicinity of probably 120 
miles to go with hardly a tree between there and the judge, where some 
of these counties only have 2 policemen in the whole county, and where 
our entire security perimeter is the Customs and the Border Patrol or 
INS agent at that little station. North Dakota ironically has more 
crossings with Canada than any other State.
  We are totally dependent on our brave personnel at the border to make 
judgment decisions.
  I want to cover a number of things in this, but first let me cover 
what I believe are some relatively outrageous statements made on the 
good faith searches.
  First off, under this bill, they have to follow the Customs 
guidelines, which explicitly say never use a person's gender, race, 
color, religion, or ethnic background as a factor in determining any 
level of suspicion. That is in the report language. In the bill it says 
``good faith searches.'' This defines ``good faith searches.''
  We have heard a lot of statements on the floor that are not accurate. 
In fact, when I met the officer, Diana Dean, at Port Angeles, who, 
because of her and 2 other Customs agents, they were able to intercept 
what was going to be a millenium bomber in Los Angeles, they themselves 
went outside of existing regulations in pursuit of the terrorist who 
had fled, because they had to make a judgment that this person seemed 
nervous at the border. They decided that the risk was so high that they 
would risk a lawsuit in order to try to save people's lives in Los 
Angeles.
  The thanks that they get is to imply that somehow they are not going 
to follow the Customs guidelines in gender-specific or race-specific 
searches because they saved people's lives. We should not have people 
on the border who are risking their careers or their livelihoods based 
on their right to protect us, and we need to work out these types of 
questions. They did not search somebody's mail, but, in fact, they went 
in hot pursuit, which was something that had they not done, the 
terrorist would have escaped. Had we not captured that terrorist, we 
would not have much of the information on al Qaeda networks that are in 
Montreal and other places. We would not have been able to put together 
the schemes.
  Every day on every border every Customs agent has to ask himself or 
herself, what is their priority; is their priority the safety of the 
citizens they are hired to protect, whether it be the laws of the 
United States or, in fact, a terrorist?

                              {time}  1515

  They have to make a decision, what is the priority. And at every 
border crossing, north and south, agents have told me that they are 
concerned about their flexibility and what their guidelines are and 
that they are inhibited in their ability not to racial profile, but how 
they are just extra cautious because they believe that without the 
ability to have good-faith searches and a little more clarity inside 
the Customs Department to change this. This is not a dramatic change, 
because, as I said, good faith says they cannot profile on the basis of 
gender, race, color, religion or ethnic background.
  Now let me address another point. One of the big problems we have on 
the north border is that DC Bud and Quebec Gold are coming across from 
Canada. In the south border it is heroine and cocaine coming in. In the 
north border it is also precursor chemicals coming in for 
methamphetamines.
  What goes back out from American citizens the other way or from 
illegals or citizens of other countries is the money. If we are going 
to track the money that goes to terrorists and drug cartels around the 
world, we have to have the ability to, when there is likely suspicion 
based on good-faith logical efforts, to be able to search in a timely 
fashion without hesitance because you are making judgment at the 
border. You have to establish it is a good-faith effort. You have to be 
able to track the money.
  We have lost much of the terrorist networks around the world because 
we are losing track of the money. And much of that money is coming back 
from America going out. At the Canadian Parliamentary/U.S. 
Parliamentary session that we had this past weekend, one of their 
concerns is that we are slowing at certain borders, and on our side of 
the border we have slowed down the borders because we are doing so much 
checking going out. That is because a lot of the problem is not 
Canadian and it is not Mexican or Central American, it is American 
citizens who are, in fact, bringing things in and then taking it back 
out and we have to have some ability to track that money.
  Furthermore, one of the big concerns for all the communities, whether 
it be Southern California or Texas or Arizona or in the north States 
like Michigan and Indiana and Washington State, for example, a pickup 
that is made in Fort Wayne will have as many as a hundred border 
crossings put in the pickup because they basically have 40 percent 
Canadian parts and about 60 percent U.S.; and the same thing on the 
reverse of the border. When you have that happen, we cannot be random 
checking every single person that is going through. Clearly we have to 
have some form of better intelligence and better screening.
  But we also have to have, because of the biggest busts in United 
States history, whether it be of drugs on the Vermont border, whether 
it be at Port Angeles where people save many of thousands of lives 
because they use their judgment as a customs agent, they have to feel 
that they are making the best judgment. What one of the people at the 
Vermont border saw was they thought there was something funny on the 
bottom of a truck because the bottom of the truck, one of the pieces of 
equipment did not look right. They decided to check this truck. It was 
the biggest drug haul they ever got at that border.
  We depend on the discretion of these brave people on the border to do 
this. We need to give them some flexibility because they are trying to 
protect us. They still cannot harass. They still cannot single out 
based on that. They have to have a logical good-faith suspicion that is 
there.
  I have a full statement I would like to put on the record on the need 
to reauthorize the Customs Service. I am disappointed that we did not 
address the overtime question. We are using these people in many cases 
for 60 hours a week. We are running out of the budget. We need to 
figure out how we will deal with this. It has been a great privilege 
and honor to meet so many of them. I think they should be upheld and 
praised and not criticized.


           1. need to reauthorize and improve customs service

  H.R. 3129 comes at an extremely critical time. In the wake of 
September 11, it is clear that we have to improve security at our 
nation's borders and ports of entry. Numerous threats face us at the 
borders: terrorism, narcotics smuggling, alien smuggling, weapons 
smuggling. The key agency in intercepting these threats is the U.S. 
Customs Service.

[[Page H2886]]

  Customs has not been reauthorized for many years. While I am 
personally impressed with the job being done by the men and women at 
the Customs Service, it is clear that they will need more help. H.R. 
3129 addresses many of the problems faced by the Customs Service, and 
will strengthen it as it meets the new challenges of the 21st century.


                         2. manifest authority

  Section 143 of this bill will require all carriers who are entering 
the U.S., whether on land, by sea, or by air, to provide the Customs 
Service with advance manifests of their cargo, crew and passengers.
  This provision is absolutely critical in our ongoing fight against 
terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other illegal contraband. The 
Customs Service needs to have this information before a truck, ship or 
airplane reaches our borders and shores. Advance information allows 
Customs to determine which shipments and which persons need extra 
scrutiny, based on the level of risk. Customs can't target the riskiest 
cargo, crew members and passengers if it doesn't know in advance what 
and who they supposedly are.
  Currently, carriers are required to provide some information. The 
amount of information, however, varies widely depending on where 
trucks, ships and airplanes are arriving. In enacting this provision, I 
believe we will help Customs standardize and improve its targeting 
procedures, thus enhancing our security.


                      3. enhancements in staffing

  Our Subcommittee has been conducting a comprehensive study of law 
enforcement and security at our nation's borders and ports of entry. We 
have been very impressed with the job being done by Customs employees 
at land crossings, sea ports and airports. But it is especially clear 
after September 11 that they need more help, particularly on the 
Northern border.
  Section 131 of this bill authorized funds to hire 285 additional 
Customs inspectors for the Northern border. This is a good start in 
addressing the severe staffing problems faced at many of our ports of 
entry.
  After September 11, Customs went to a heightened state of alert, 
meaning that Customs inspectors began conducting more inspections and 
working much longer hours. We have spoken to many Customs inspectors, 
and nearly all of them are putting in long hours of overtime. This will 
allow our inspectors to receive fair compensation when a national 
emergency forces them to put in the kind of hours they had to last 
fall.


                     4. improvements in technology

  Section 102 of this bill provides for additional equipment and 
technology for Customs inspections on both the Southern and the 
Northern borders. At each of the ports of entry we have visited, it has 
been clear that the experience, dedication and judgment of individual 
inspectors is the most important defense we have against those who 
would do us harm--like Ahmed Ressam, who was caught trying to smuggle 
bombs into this country in December 1999 by the alertness of Customs 
inspectors at Port Angeles, Washington.
  However, our inspectors can't do their job if they don't have the 
right tools, and that means technology. Section 102 authorizes funds 
for additional equipment and technology at our borders and sea ports. 
This equipment, including VACIS scanning units, cargo container 
scanners, and other detection devices, allows Customs inspectors to 
examine far more trucks and cargo containers than they could manually.


               5. automated commercial environment (ACE)

  Section 101 authorizes funds to continue the development of Customs'; 
``next generation'' computer system, the ACE system. Customs is 
currently using computer technology that dates back to the mid-1980's. 
The program is cumbersome, it frequently breaks down, and it simply 
isn't adaptable to current trade realities. The ACE system will fix 
these problems and provide the international trade community with a 
``single window'' through which to provide information to all 
government agencies that regulate and inspect the goods entering the 
country.


                  6. immunity for good faith searches

  Some people have criticized Section 141, which provides immunity from 
civil damages for U.S. officials conducting searches at our ports of 
entry. However, this provision is necessary if our Customs inspectors 
are going to be able to do the job we're asking them to do. We want our 
inspectors to be vigilant and thorough in protecting us from 
terrorists, drug smugglers and others who would do us harm. If so, then 
we need to give them the assurance that, if they are acting in good 
faith, they can't be hauled into court.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Just to respond to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder), the activities that the gentleman described of customs 
officials trying to apprehend individuals who were suspects or there 
was probable cause to believe they were suspects, whether it was 
contraband or terrorist activities, all that is protected under current 
law because those officials would have been acting under the color of 
law and would have had under an objective standard the right to do that 
because it would have been perceived to be reasonable.
  What this legislation does, it removes the objective person's 
standard of what is reasonable under the Constitution, and says what is 
subjectively reasonable. So that if the officer said, well, I believed 
I was reasonable in going after that African American woman and strip 
searching her because I thought she might be carrying contraband, we 
under this legislation could not challenge that. Because so long as he 
believed he was acting in good faith, however that good faith is 
defined, because this bill does not define it, you could not go after 
that person.
  This legislation would deny us any recourse, that African American 
woman, that individual who is innocent, recourse. What the substitute 
says, and I will yield with the time that I have, the substitute says, 
okay, let us protect the officers so they do not find themselves in 
court, but do not make the government free of liability for violations 
of the Constitution. Make the government clean up its act even if you 
do not cause individuals in the customs service to face lawsuits 
individually.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made a misstatement of fact.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The time of the gentleman 
from California has expired.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this standard and, of 
course, somebody can take it to court if they do not think they filed 
in good faith, but the fact is that the burden of proof at the time of 
the actual what is going on at the border, the officer has to make a 
decision in his mind, not in an outside mind, as to whether it was in 
good faith. They did at Port Angeles which helped save people in Los 
Angeles. They made a good-faith effort in what they thought was a good-
faith effort. But it intimidates a lot of officers who know if they may 
think it is a good-faith effort, but somebody outside does not, 
depending on what that group is and how, it is an inhibiting factor.
  They can be sued or you can have a process if you feel it is not good 
faith in that officer's eyes and he would have to defend that position. 
It is a question of where the burden is, and you are implying that the 
customs officers on the border are not capable or we will have rogue 
officers. If they are rogue officers, they can be pursued. The question 
is what does the regular officer do and how is it intimidating in our 
border safety?
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to continue to deal 
with the question that is before us.
  I think the gentleman misunderstands. The fact of the matter is the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) explained that we are not 
stripping away the protection. They will have immunity from liability. 
We are taking the liability and placing it in the hands of government 
rather than on the individual that would have made that decision who 
thought that it was a reasonable decision at that time.

[[Page H2887]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, the further point where the gentleman from 
Indiana misstates what is current law and what I said, we base it 
because the Supreme Court has said, not on what the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) believes is reasonable or what I believe is 
reasonable. It is an objective standard, not a subjective standard.
  This bill changes the Supreme Court's law that says you base 
reasonableness on an objective standard, and it says based 
reasonableness on what that officer believed was reasonable. And that 
is not fair because that subjective judgment could cause people's 
rights to be violated.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time. I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for their strong defense of 
the liberties of our citizens no matter where they are. And I would say 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) who has become so expert on 
what is going on at the border, I was at the border with him in San 
Diego and I was at those hearings and I did those tours. And there was 
nothing in those hearings that could lead me to the conclusion that he 
has stated here in favor of the basic bill.
  I represent a border district. I represent the southernmost area of 
California that borders Mexico. After next year I will represent the 
whole California/Mexico border. In fact, I represent the border 
crossing in which there are the most people crossing of any place in 
the world; and I have represented this area for a decade and a half. So 
I think I know something about what is going on there and what we can 
achieve and what we can protect. I think we can do both. We can provide 
customs with the tools that they need to do their job, and we can 
protect the constitutional rights of my constituents and citizens from 
all over this country.
  We had a very good bill, I am told, that would have received a large 
vote in support; but the bill that came to the floor sacrificed privacy 
under the guise of security, and so we have the Waters substitute, 
which I am speaking in favor of.
  The immunity that is requested has not been really supported by 
customs. They have not made the case of why the current standard of 
qualified immunity is insufficient. Officers are already protected from 
the unwarranted claims as we have heard many times before.
  As far as the mail goes, we inspect mail that comes into this country 
because we do not know what it might contain. But with the mail going 
out, our privacy should not be unduly invaded. As we have heard several 
times, customs can search the mail already if they get a warrant. They 
can hold the mail if it is suspicious. But we should not authorize a 
wholesale opening of mail without a warrant.
  Mr. Chairman, in these United States of America even in 2002, even 
after September 11, we should not try to guarantee the security of our 
Nation by crushing the civil rights of our people. This is not the way 
to go. Support the substitute. Vote down the basic bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) controls 14 minutes. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) 
controls 18 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear 
the dialogue and debate with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra) and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), but 
I think the more we can clarify what this substitute does we might be 
able to get legislation that all of us could support. It is a simple 
process. Those of us who live every day as Americans but also have a 
history of discrimination by this Nation against us are very sensitive 
to laws that would undermine even more those basic rights. It is our 
cause, if you will, our particular duty to bring to this House our 
diverse perspective, and that is to understand what it means to 
racially profile young African American males, young African American 
women, young Hispanic men and women and others of diverse racial 
backgrounds.
  What we say today is that this is not an indictment of customs 
agents. As all of us have, we have excellent and outstanding customs 
agents working throughout our Nation in every one of our districts. As 
I go through the Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, every day, 
I see the fine work of men and women of the Customs Service. We promote 
and support them.
  As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are constantly 
looking for ways to enhance and provide them with the resources that 
they need. Let us divide ourselves with that kind of negative attack 
which is trying to be drawn to those of us who are now speaking about 
civil liberties.
  It is clear and simple. The substitute is not a complicated 
initiative. It says this: ``Remain in current law with respect to the 
search of mail; require a warrant, a simple probable cause.'' That is 
not a difficult proposition. Might I say that most of us are not 
getting mail timely anyhow. This is not a comment on the U.S. Postal 
Service. It is not a comment on the U.S. Postal Service. It is a 
comment on the status of mail today because of necessary security 
precautions. We accept that. With that in mind, ample opportunity is 
given to those who believe there is need to search mail. I welcome them 
searching mail, but they can do it under current law and that is what 
the substitute provides.

                              {time}  1530

  Secondarily, with respect to the Customs agents, there is no chilling 
effect. Do the job. If someone determines suspiciousness, I give that 
person 100 percent latitude to do so. The question becomes those who 
willy-nilly want to seek persons who have no basis upon being sought, 
there is no suspiciousness, other than color of their skin, and what 
the substitute provides for us, which I cannot find a reason to divide 
on this, it protects the Customs agents 100 percent. It tells them to 
do their job.
  If, however, an aggrieved citizen or person comes and says I know 
that I was targeted on the basis of not good faith, but on racial 
profiling, the government stands in the shoes of that agent, protects 
the agent, but then gives the opportunity of the aggrieved citizen to 
be able to seek address of their grievances.
  That is the key to the substitute. Why this could not be supported by 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to make this the kind of 
legislation that speaks to what we are trying to do, not a single 
divide on fighting terrorism but a recognition that the values of this 
Nation are different.
  Let me finally say, Mr. Chairman, and I have said this before, we 
have a lot of work to do on fighting terrorism, and part of it is in 
the question of intelligence and sharing intelligence. It is a shame 
and a sham that there is a closed session dealing with this by 1 
committee when other committees of jurisdiction, such as the Committee 
on Judiciary, have not yet held hearings regarding this important 
issue.
  I believe if we spend our time trying to track why intelligence and 
memoranda is not shared up the track or up the line so that we can 
determine how to fix those problems, I think we can spend a lot of good 
energies doing that, and in this instance, I think we can spend good 
energies passing a good substitute to make this bill better so that we 
can fight terrorism in a unified voice but as well stand for the values 
that this Nation stands for.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the substitute. I would ask my colleagues to 
do so, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in asking that we 
investigate fully why memos are not communicated that deal with 
protecting this Nation and providing good intelligence.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle the 
fact that

[[Page H2888]]

none of our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means raised this 
issue during consideration of this bill in committee and the amendment, 
Rangel amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here to urge support for the Rangel 
substitute which would strike, among other things, section 144 from the 
bill.
  As the ranking member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the 
Postal Service, I am especially concerned about section 144. This 
section would allow Customs agents to inspect outbound mail without a 
search warrant.
  Never in our Nation's history have we allowed law enforcement to 
inspect the outbound personal letters of our Nation's citizens without 
a search warrant. This is an intrusion on the privacy of the American 
citizens sending letters abroad, and it could have adverse effects on 
the delivery of letters by the Postal Service.
  As many of my colleagues have heard, the American Civil Liberties 
Union opposes the measure, saying it violates people's expectation of 
privacy in the mail and that the Customs Service's interest in 
protecting our borders is adequately protected by its ability to secure 
a search warrant.
  A leading association of business mailers is concerned about the 
provision as well, saying it would slow the pace of mail and add 
millions to the cost of shipping goods overseas.
  The Postal Service is strongly opposed to the provision. They say it 
would have a detrimental impact on their ability to move mail and could 
jeopardize their international express mail service.
  Not only is this provision troubling from a civil liberties 
standpoint and the standpoint of mail delivery, it may also violate our 
commitment under international mail treaties. In addition, it 
contradicts section 3623 of title XXXIX which prohibits inspection of 
certain classes of mail without a search warrant. The provision does 
not amend title XXXIX and instead would create a statutory conflict.
  The Customs Service has full authority to search outbound mail now as 
long as it first obtains a search warrant. Customs argues that this 
requirement creates too much of a burden for them and that they need 
broader search authority. It may be that the Customs Service needs this 
authority, but the Committee on Ways and Means has never held a hearing 
on this issue to explore why this authority is needed or its impact on 
civil liberties, and the Committee on Government Reform, which has 
jurisdiction over the Postal Service, has not had an opportunity to 
examine this issue at all despite its impacts on the Postal Service.
  These are serious concerns that need to be explored. We should not 
approve this unprecedented authority until the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the Committee on Government Reform have had an opportunity to 
examine the issue very, very carefully. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the Rangel substitute and give us an opportunity to explore these 
concerns.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) for bringing that to our attention, and I have 
just been informed that the Democratic members of the Committee on Ways 
and Means raised some of those concerns under the gentleman's 
jurisdiction in committee and even tried to offer amendments. So I 
thank the gentleman very much for bringing this to the floor at this 
time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, well, they might have 
raised concerns and offered amendments, but the committee that has 
jurisdiction over the Postal Service did not have a chance to examine 
it nor did the Committee on Ways and Means, as far as I know, hold 
hearings on the matter which would have brought in expert testimony.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane) has the right to close.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought we had the right to close.
  The Rangel amendment, the substitute states that Customs inspectors 
are not liable for civil damages for suits brought in connection with a 
personal search. However, the bill does state that the U.S. Government 
consents to be sued and to be held liable for civil damages for suits 
brought in connection with the wrongful personal search. I think it is 
necessary for me to say that because I think there is some confusion 
about what this amendment does.
  Before I talk about this amendment any more, I think it is important 
for me to clarify that there are many good things in this bill. This 
bill includes good legislation, all of which we include in the 
substitute. This bill includes important authorization for 
appropriations such as providing Customs with funding above the 
administration's request and equals that provided in the appropriations 
process.
  Most of the increased funding allows for an authorization of $308 
million for each fiscal year to ensure that the Customs automation 
system will be developed in a timely fashion, providing USTR with more 
than requested by the administration and providing the International 
Trade Commission with its full fiscal year request. The bill also 
authorizes such sums as needed to reestablish New York Customs 
headquarters and operations.
  Finally, the bill authorizes $1.3 million for Customs to hire 
additional personnel to assist ATOA beneficiaries to comply with visa 
and textile transshipment requirements.
  The bill also includes provisions that will help ensure the safety of 
our borders, including requiring all carriers to file an electronic 
manifest describing passengers and cargo before entering the country.
  So I do not want anyone to get the idea that somehow because we have 
a substitute that we have ignored those parts of the bill that we think 
are good, but we think that it is very important for us not to jump on 
the bandwagon of undermining the civil liberties of American citizens 
in the name of fighting terrorism. We believe in fighting terrorism, 
but we do not believe that we undermine or waive the Constitution of 
the United States to do so.
  Let me just say that our Customs agents have all of the authority 
that they need to do the searches that they want to do, that they are 
protected with qualified liability, and they do not need to have this 
bill which, in fact, goes far beyond anything that they have requested.
  Let me remind the Members of this Congress that with this authority, 
with this protection, we do expect our agents to be careful and to be 
reasonable. They have the ability to strip-search. My colleagues heard 
the GAO study. We are not making this up. The GAO study talked about 
the fact that African American women are searched much more than other 
women. It talked about the fact that African American women have much 
less contraband, despite the fact they are searched more.
  While there are those who are willing to throw out the Constitution, 
I suspect they are only willing to do it until their wife comes 
through, or their sister, or their neighbor or their friend, and is 
strip-searched in ways that they cannot believe is reasonable.
  Let me just say that this bill will transfer the liability from the 
individual agents to the government where it belongs. There are many 
people who work for government and are agents of the government of the 
United States and they do not have to accept the liability, that it is 
on the shoulders of the government of the United States, and that is 
the way that it should be.
  I think that the case has been made here today. I think that these 
issues were brought up in committee. We see the dissenting views of 
those who signed a letter indicating their dissenting views, and I 
would say that not only has the case been made but that the Members of 
the Congress of the United States should not go throw out the 
Constitution of the United States in an effort to deal with terrorism.

[[Page H2889]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
is recognized for the last 2 minutes on the debate of the gentlewoman's 
time.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters) for yielding me the time, and I compliment her on her 
statement.
  When H.R. 3129 came to the floor on suspension last December and here 
again today, we argued that the legislation introduced needlessly 
expanded the scope of Federal authority and threatened the protection 
of civil rights by granting search immunity to Customs agents so broad 
and by allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. 
mail, that the measure was unacceptable.
  In defeating the legislation, we reiterated our commitment to 
aggressively investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks and 
agreed to work with the majority to improve the legislation, but, 
unfortunately, the majority has not been open to discussion and 
compromise on the critical issues of racial profiling and privacy that 
are raised by this legislation. Why? Although the Rangel substitute 
addresses those civil liberty questions and retains the portion of the 
bill that reasonably and fairly addresses the issues of border 
security.
  Meetings between staff and the Customs Service have clarified the 
Customs immunity question and proven that the section 141 immunity 
provision is unnecessary. Although Customs failed to document the 
specific cases, they disclosed, and we are unaware of any case where a 
Customs agent, acting within the scope of his authority, has been 
subject to prejudgment attachment of their personal assets in any kind 
of a trial that followed.
  When H.R. 3129 came to the floor on suspension last December and 
again here today, we have argued that the legislation as introduced 
needlessly expanded the scope of federal authority and threatened the 
protection of civil rights by granting broad search immunity to customs 
agents and by allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international 
U.S. mail. In defeating the legislation, we reiterated our commitment 
aggressively investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks and 
agreed to work with the majority to improve the legislation.
  It is truly unfortunate that the majority has not been open to 
discussion and compromise on the critical issues of racial profiling 
and privacy that are raised by this legislation. We believe that the 
Rangel substitute addresses those civil liberty questions and retains 
the portion of the bill that fairly addresses issues of border 
security.
  Meetings between staff and the Customs Service have clarified the 
customs immunity question and proven the fact that the Section 141 
immunity provision is unnecessary. Although Customs failed to document 
the specific cases, they disclosed and we are unaware of any case where 
a Customs agent, acting within the scope of their authority, has been 
subject to a pre-judgement attachment of their personal assets or 
judgement of any kind following a trial.
  As we have consistently stated, the existing doctrine of qualified 
immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions 
from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly 
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable 
person should have known. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that 
the reasonableness of an officer's behavior, not the subjective ``good 
faith'' standard used in this legislation, is the proper test for 
liability.
  What the Custom's Service has complained about is the pace of trial 
through the federal courts. Bluntly stated, they want the cases against 
their
     agents disposed of faster, like every other civil litigant in 
     the country. This bill's response in Section 141 is the 
     creation of a broad category of immunity, unavailable to any 
     other law enforcement officer.
  That provision is both unnecessary and dangerous to the rights of the 
public, who deserve their day in court to protect against racial 
profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the 
Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies.
  It is important to note that the Custom's Service has argued that 
Section 141 of this legislation would apply retroactively and result in 
the dismissal of a host of lawsuits, many of which were brought by 
African-American women who are contesting the legality of disparate 
intrusive searches documented by the GAO. When viewed in that light, 
this provision looks less like a tool to address terrorism than a broom 
to sweep away troublesome cases that raise issues of questionable 
conduct and policy.
  The substitute replaces Section 141's grant of immunity with an 
exclusive remedy against the government for the actions of Customs 
agents who act within the scope of their authority. This compromise 
fairly balances the interests of Customs agents, who follow policy, 
with the interests of those aggrieved persons who have been the victim 
of questionable searches.
  With respect to privacy interests, the authors of this bill have 
completely failed to make a case for weakening the legal standard for 
the search U.S. mail. Under current law, the Customs Service is 
empowered to search, without a warrant, 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.
  The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons' 
shipments, drugs or other contraband inbound or outbound 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.
  The U.S. Postal Service has even taken the position that ``There is 
no evidence that eroding these long established privacy protections 
will bring any significant law enforcement improvements over what is 
achieved using existing, statutorily approved law enforcement 
techniques.'' In short, experts from the Postal Service have determined 
that this provision is unnecessary.
  As we search for increased national security, we must remain mindful 
of the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource and ensure 
that freedom is not a casualty of vigilance. We believe that the Rangel 
substitute strikes the appropriate balance between civil liberties and 
security by correcting deficiencies in H.R. 3129 as introduced. Because 
increased security should not come at the cost of our constitutional 
rights, I urge you to join me in supporting the substitute.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My bill would provide Customs with new, necessary search tools in 
light of America's new security needs while balancing the need for 
privacy.
  The Rangel substitute guts some key provisions. By striking the 
outbound mail provision, the Rangel substitute allows continued money-
laundering to occur. The Rangel immunity provision leaves the Federal 
Government open to a new class of torts. My bill protects only those 
inspectors who act in good faith.
  Under my bill the government can be sued under the Federal Torts 
Claims Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the Rangel substitute and a yes 
vote on H.R. 3129.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the Rangel Amendment to H.R. 3129, the Customs Border Security Act 
of 2001.
  As a Member of Congress, and as an African American, I cannot 
tolerate the practice of stopping and searching American citizens for 
no reason other than their race. As I studied H.R. 3129 that is what I 
feared would happen.
  As I thought about this issue, I realized that the words that went to 
the core of this issue had been written over two centuries ago, and 
could be found within one of the documents sitting on my desk--The 
Constitution of the United States. For the Constitution's Preamble 
states: ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide 
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''
  Let me repeat the key phrases that are critical to this issue: ``We, 
the people of the United States . . . establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquility, do ordain and establish this Constitution.''
  The attitude demonstrated by too many law enforcement officers must 
change from inaccurately resuming the guilt of people of color. This is 
the least that our Constitution requires of them.
  H.R. 3129 is bad for America's citizens. However, the Rangel 
Amendment addresses the core concern of Customs: that Customs 
inspectors are not personally liable for monetary

[[Page H2890]]

damages in civil suits involving personal searches; the amendment also 
ensures that there is recourse for potential abuses of civil rights by 
providing recourse against the U.S. government.
  Section 141 of the bill provides immunity to a Customs officer 
conducting a search of a person or property provided he or she was 
acting in ``good faith.''
  The term ``good faith'' is not defined in the bill. An officer could 
engage in blatantly discriminatory conduct, but if he in ``good faith'' 
believes that he was justified in doing so, he could not be held 
liable.
  Customs officers are already entitled to qualified immunity that 
protects them from unwarranted claims related to illegal and 
unconstitutional searches.
  This bill would expand immunity so as to make it nearly impossible 
for a person seeking redress for an unconstitutional search.
  No law enforcement official is entitled to this broad grant of 
immunity and the Customs Office, which has a documented history of 
racial profiling, should not be an exception to the qualified immunity 
standard. Given that Congress has recently expanded the police powers 
of government officials, it should not at the same time cut back on the 
mechanisms in existing law that are designed to ensure police powers 
are not abused.
  It is our duty to breathe life into the words that protect every 
American Citizen, no matter the color of their skin. We must remember 
Dr. Martin Luther King's words: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 3129 and support the Rangel 
Amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 231, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burton
     Deutsch
     Emerson
     Mascara
     Traficant
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1609

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, SHERWOOD, 
SKEEN, WELLER, BACHUS, LUTHER, and GILMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon and Mr. DAVIS of 
Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________