Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)

[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.

[[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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

[[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.

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.

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.

[[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.

SEC. 402. REGULATORY AUDIT PROCEDURES.

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

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

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.

[[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.

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.

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.

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.

[[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.

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.

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.

SEC. 144. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REESTABLISHMENT
OF CUSTOMS OPERATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY.

[[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

____________________