[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 127 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8874-H8894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 10.
{time} 1002
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for reform of the intelligence community,
terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and
international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Kolbe (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the committee of the whole rose
earlier today, amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 108-751 by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it shall be in order at
any time for the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence or a designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of
any of the amendment numbers 9, 16, 18, 20, and 22 printed in House
report 108-751.
The amendments en bloc shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The original proponent of the amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 108-751.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Carter
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Carter:
At the end of title II insert the following:
Subtitle J--Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2004
SEC. 2221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Terrorist Penalties
Enhancement Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2222. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST OFFENSES RESULTING IN
DEATH; DENIAL OF FEDERAL BENEFITS TO
TERRORISTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2339E. Terrorist offenses resulting in death
``(a) Whoever, in the course of committing a terrorist
offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of a
person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term
of years or for life.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `terrorist offense'
means--
``(1) a Federal felony offense that is--
``(A) a Federal crime of terrorism as defined in section
2332b(g) except to the extent such crime is an offense under
section 1363; or
``(B) an offense under this chapter, section 175, 175b,
229, or 831, or section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
or
``(2) a Federal offense that is an attempt or conspiracy to
commit an offense described in paragraph (1).
``Sec. 2339F. Denial of Federal benefits to terrorists
``(a) An individual or corporation who is convicted of a
terrorist offense (as defined in section 2339E) shall, as
provided by the court on motion of the Government, be
ineligible for any or all Federal benefits for any term of
years or for life.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `Federal benefit'
has the meaning given that term in section 421(d) of the
Controlled Substances Act, and also includes any assistance
or benefit described in section 115(a) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, with the same limitations and to the same extent as
provided in section 115 of that Act with respect to denials
of benefits and assistance to which that section applies.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table
of sections at the beginning of the chapter 113B of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new items:
``2339E. Terrorist offenses resulting in death.
``2339F. Denial of federal benefits to terrorists.''.
(c) Aggravating Factor in Death Penalty Cases.--Section
3592(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``section 2339E (terrorist offenses resulting in
death),'' after ``destruction),''.
SEC. 2223. DEATH PENALTY IN CERTAIN AIR PIRACY CASES
OCCURRING BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEATH
PENALTY ACT OF 1994.
Section 60003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, (Public Law 103-322), is amended, as
of the time of its enactment, by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Death Penalty Procedures for Certain Previous
Aircraft Piracy Violations.--An individual convicted of
violating section 46502 of title 49, United States Code, or
its predecessor, may be sentenced to death in accordance with
the procedures established in chapter 228 of title 18, United
States Code, if for any offense committed before the
enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), but after the enactment of
the Antihijacking Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-366), it is
determined by the finder of fact, before consideration of the
factors set forth in sections 3591(a)(2) and 3592(a) and (c)
of title 18, United States Code, that one or more of the
factors set forth in former section 46503(c)(2) of title 49,
United States Code, or its predecessor, has been proven by
the Government to exist, beyond a reasonable doubt, and that
none of the factors set forth in former section 46503(c)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, or its predecessor, has been
proven by the defendant to exist, by a preponderance of the
information. The meaning of the term `especially heinous,
cruel, or depraved', as used in the factor set forth in
former section 46503(c)(2)(B)(iv) of title 49, United States
Code, or its predecessor, shall be narrowed by adding the
limiting language `in that it involved torture or serious
physical abuse to the victim', and shall be construed as when
that term is used in section 3592(c)(6) of title 18, United
States Code.''
Conform the table of sections accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment, the Terrorist Penalties
Enhancements Act, which will provide new and expanded penalties to
those who commit fatal acts of terrorism.
Since September 11, Federal and State officials continue to work hard
to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. However, despite
some changes to the law to increase penalties after deadly terrorist
attacks, a jury is still denied the ability to consider a death
sentence or life imprisonment for a terrorist in many cases, even when
the attacks result in death and the court believes it is necessary to
prevent further harm to our citizens.
For example, in the case in which a terrorist causes massive loss of
life by sabotaging a nuclear power plant or a national defense
installation, there would be no possibility of imposing the death
penalty under the statutes defining these offenses because they contain
[[Page H8875]]
no death penalty authorizations. In contrast, dozens of other Federal
violent crime provisions authorize up to life imprisonment or the death
penalty in cases where victims are killed. Because the potential
tragedy here is so great, we must hope that changing this law to allow
a sentence of death or life imprisonment will serve as a deterrent to
would-be terrorists. It is one more tool in our arsenal.
Mr. Chairman, hearings have been held on this straightforward
legislation, and it has been agreed to by the House Committee on the
Judiciary. It will make terrorists who kill eligible for the Federal
death penalty. This legislation will also deny these same terrorists
any Federal benefits they otherwise may have been eligible to receive.
These Federal benefits denied include Social Security, welfare,
unemployment and food stamps.
As a former State District Judge for over 20 years, I have presided
over five capital murders trials, three of which resulted in the death
penalty. I understand the gravity of seeking and imposing the death
penalty. However, from my experience, I believe the death penalty is a
tool that can deter acts of terrorism and can serve as a tool for
prosecutors when negotiating sentences.
I am pleased that President George Bush expressed his support for
this legislation. In a speech to the FBI Academy, President Bush said,
``For the sake of American people, Congress should change the law and
give law enforcement officials the same tools they have to fight terror
that they have to fight other crime.''
In Hershey, Pennsylvania, President Bush reemphasized the inequity in
current law. President Bush said, ``We ought to be sending a strong
signal: If you sabotage a defense installation or a nuclear facility in
a way that takes an innocent life, you ought to get the death penalty,
the Federal death penalty.''
This legislation today puts all would-be terrorists on notice that
they will receive ultimate justice should they decide to plan and
execute a future attack.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill creates 23 new death penalties, making all
Federal crimes of terrorism punishable by death. We would remind people
that a 23-year study of over 4,500 death penalty cases found reversible
error in 68 percent of the cases. We suspect that approximately 100
people in the last 10 years have been wrongfully executed. This burden
falls disproportionately on minorities.
So when you talk about a strong signal, the signal, I guess, is you
put people to death because, well, they might have been guilty. We know
in the end the death penalty will not deter suicide bombers from
completing their crimes. Furthermore, we have the problem of
international law, the fact that most countries in the world,
particularly our allies, do not have the death penalty and will not
extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the
death penalty.
One of the problems with the Federal crimes of terrorism is that it
is somewhat vague. It could include some kind of a political protest.
The death could occur by accident. It was not even intended. Somebody
got trampled in the protest, for example, and here you are talking
about the death penalty. But because it includes not only completing
the crime and killing somebody, it includes support for someone. You
might want to rename this the ``Put Mama to Death Bill.'' If a mother
harbors her son, lets him stay at home, she would then become and
everybody in the family becomes subject to the death penalty.
Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with reorganization of the
intelligence community. I would hope that we would reserve judgment on
this and consider this bill and others when we consider the Patriot
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is simple. We must do
everything we can to stop terrorists, and that starts with ensuring
that all terrorist acts are punished swiftly and severely. This
amendment sends a clear message that we take terrorism seriously; that
we understand that terrorist acts are not really crimes, they are
combat; that on 9/11 we were not merely assaulted, we were invaded; and
when there is combat, when terrorists invade our soil in deadly
fashion, we will punish those responsible with the heaviest possible
penalties. To do less would be a disservice to those who have lost
their lives and would send a signal of softness to those who still seek
our destruction.
I was proud to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) on
this subject. I commend him for carrying it forward. It is important
work. It is good work that he is doing. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we will be considering the
Patriot Act. I would hope that we would consider this legislation as
part of that.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) will be postponed.
Amendment En Bloc Offered By Mr. Hoekstra
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the unanimous consent
agreement, I offer the amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en
bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:
Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hoekstra consisting of
amendments numbered 9, 16, 18, 20 and 22:
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Castle
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 5__. REMOVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY BARRIERS THAT DISCOURAGE
THE DONATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANIES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004''.
(b) Liability Protection.--A person who donates fire
control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company
shall not be liable for civil damages under any State or
Federal law for personal injuries, property damage or loss,
or death proximately caused by the equipment after the
donation.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (b) does not apply to a person
if--
(1) the person's act or omission proximately causing the
injury, damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence
or intentional misconduct; or
(2) the person is the manufacturer of the fire control or
fire rescue equipment.
(d) Preemption.--This section preempts the laws of any
State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this
section, except that notwithstanding subsection (c) this
section shall not preempt any State law that provides
additional protection from liability for a person who donates
fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire
company.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any governmental
or other entity.
(2) Fire control or rescue equipment.--The term ``fire
control or fire rescue equipment'' includes any fire vehicle,
fire fighting tool, communications equipment, protective
gear, fire hose, or breathing apparatus.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any other territory or
possession of the United States, and any political
subdivision of any such State, territory, or possession.
(4) Volunteer fire company.--The term ``volunteer fire
company'' means an association of individuals who provide
fire protection and other emergency services, where at least
30 percent of the individuals receive little or no
compensation compared with an entry level full-time paid
individual in that
[[Page H8876]]
association or in the nearest such association with an entry
level full-time paid individual.
(f) Effective Date.--This section applies only to liability
for injury, damage, loss, or death caused by equipment that,
for purposes of subsection (b), is donated on or after the
date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(g) Attorney General Review.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General of the United States
shall conduct a State-by-State review of the donation of
firefighter equipment to volunteer firefighter companies
during the 5-year period ending on the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall publish and submit to the Congress a report on
the results of the review conducted under paragraph (1). The
report shall include, for each State, the most effective way
to fund firefighter companies, whether first responder
funding is sufficient to respond to the Nation's needs, and
the best method to ensure that the equipment donated to
volunteer firefighter companies is in usable condition.
____
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas
After section 5010 insert the following new section:
SEC. 5011. DIGITAL TELEVISION CONVERSION DEADLINE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress granted television broadcasters additional 6
MHz blocks of spectrum to transmit digital broadcasts
simultaneously with the analog broadcasts they transmit on
their original 6 megahertz blocks of spectrum.
(2) Section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of 1934
requires each television broadcaster to cease analog
transmissions and return 6 megahertz of spectrum by December
31, 2006, or once just over 85 percent of the television
households in that broadcaster's market can view digital
broadcast television channels using a digital television, a
digital-to-analog-converter box, cable service, or satellite
service, whichever is later.
(3) Twenty-four megahertz of spectrum currently occupied by
the television broadcasters has been earmarked for use by
first responders once the television broadcasters return the
spectrum broadcasters currently use to provide analog
transmissions.
(4) This spectrum would be ideal to provide first
responders with interoperable communications channels.
(5) Large parts of the vacated spectrum could be auctioned
for advanced commercial services, such as wireless broadband.
(6) The ``85-percent penetration test'' could delay the
termination of analog television broadcasts and the return of
spectrum well beyond 2007, hindering the use of that spectrum
for these important public-safety and advanced commercial
uses.
(7) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date
certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety
use would not adequately resolve the identified need for
improved public-safety communications interoperability.
Broadcasters estimate that the public-safety only approach
would dislocate as many as 75 stations, including some in
major markets, airing major network programming, sometimes
even in digital form. Unless broadcasters are required to
return concurrently all the spectrum currently used for
analog transmissions, it will be exceedingly difficult to
relocate these 75 stations, which also serve a critical
public safety function by broadcasting weather, traffic,
disaster, and other safety alerts.
(8) Proposals to require broadcasters to return, on a date
certain, just the spectrum earmarked for future public-safety
use also would neither address the digital television
transition in a comprehensive fashion nor free valuable
spectrum for advanced commercial services.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Now, therefore, it is the sense of
Congress that section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of
1934 should be amended to eliminate the 85-percent
penetration test and to require broadcasters to cease analog
transmissions at the close of December 31, 2006, so that the
spectrum can be returned and repurposed for important public-
safety and advanced commercial uses.
____
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Fossella
Page 606, after line 17, insert the following (and
redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly):
(d) Multi-Year Interoperability Grants.--
(1) Multi-year commitments.--In awarding grants to any
State, region, local government, or Indian tribe for the
purposes of enhancing interoperable communications
capabilities for emergency response providers, the Secretary
may commit to obligate Federal assistance beyond the current
fiscal year, subject to the limitations and restrictions in
this subsection.
(2) Restrictions.--
(A) Time limit.--No multi-year interoperability commitment
may exceed 3 years in duration.
(B) Amount of committed funds.--The total amount of
assistance the Secretary has committed to obligate for any
future fiscal year under paragraph (1) may not exceed
$150,000,000.
(3) Letters of intent.--
(A) Issuance.--Pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may
issue a letter of intent to an applicant committing to
obligate from future budget authority an amount, not more
than the Federal Government's share of the project's cost,
for an interoperability communications project (including
interest costs and costs of formulating the project).
(B) Schedule.--A letter of intent under this paragraph
shall establish a schedule under which the Secretary will
reimburse the applicant for the Federal Government's share of
the project's costs, as amounts become available, if the
applicant, after the Secretary issues the letter, carries out
the project before receiving amounts under a grant issued by
the Secretary.
(C) Notice to secretary.--An applicant that is issued a
letter of intent under this subsection shall notify the
Secretary of the applicant's intent to carry out a project
pursuant to the letter before the project begins.
(D) Notice to congress.--The Secretary shall transmit a
written notification to the Congress no later than 3 days
before the issuance of a letter of intent under this section.
(E) Limitations.--A letter of intent issued under this
section is not an obligation of the Government under section
1501 of title 31, United States Code, and is not deemed to be
an administrative commitment for financing. An obligation or
administrative commitment may be made only as amounts are
provided in authorization and appropriations laws.
(F) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed--
(i) to prohibit the obligation of amounts pursuant to a
letter of intent under this subsection in the same fiscal
year as the letter of intent is issued; or
(ii) to apply to, or replace, Federal assistance intended
for interoperable communications that is not provided
pursuant to a commitment under this subsection.
(e) Interoperable Communications Plans.--Any applicant
requesting funding assistance from the Secretary for
interoperable communications for emergency response providers
shall submit an Interoperable Communications Plan to the
Secretary for approval. Such a plan shall--
(1) describe the current state of communications
interoperability in the applicable jurisdictions among
Federal, State, and local emergency response providers and
other relevant private resources;
(2) describe the available and planned use of public safety
frequency spectrum and resources for interoperable
communications within such jurisdictions;
(3) describe how the planned use of spectrum and resources
for interoperable communications is compatible with
surrounding capabilities and interoperable communications
plans of Federal, State, and local governmental entities,
military installations, foreign governments, critical
infrastructure, and other relevant entities;
(4) include a 5-year plan for the dedication of Federal,
State, and local government and private resources to achieve
a consistent, secure, and effective interoperable
communications system, including planning, system design and
engineering, testing and technology development, procurement
and installation, training, and operations and maintenance;
and
(5) describe how such 5-year plan meets or exceeds any
applicable standards and grant requirements established by
the Secretary.
____
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Mica
Page 198, after line 22, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent subparagraphs of the quoted matter
accordingly):
``(D) Prescreening international passengers.--Not later
than 60 days after date of enactment of this subparagraph,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the designee of the
Secretary, shall issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that
will allow the Department of Homeland Security to compare
passenger name records for any international flight to or
from the United States against the consolidated and
integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal
Government before departure of the flight.
Page 199, strike lines 17 through 22 and insert the
following:
``(F) Appeal procedures.--
``(i) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish
a timely and fair process for individuals identified as a
threat under one or more of subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E)
to appeal to the Transportation Security Administration the
determination and correct any erroneous information.
``(ii) Records.--The process shall include the
establishment of a method by which the Assistant Secretary
will be able to maintain a record of air passengers who have
been misidentified and have corrected erroneous information.
To prevent repeated delays of misidentified passengers, the
Transportation Security Administration record shall contain
information determined by the Assistant Secretary to
authenticate the identity of such a passenger.
Page 203, lines 5 and 6, strike ``explosive detection
systems'' and insert ``explosive detection devices''.
Page 203, line 9, insert ``backscatter x-ray scanners,''
after ``shoe scanners,''.
Page 213, after line 9, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents of the bill accordingly):
[[Page H8877]]
SEC. 2188. IN-LINE CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such action
as may be necessary to expedite the installation and use of
advanced in-line baggage-screening equipment at commercial
airports.
Page 213, line 10, redesignate section 2188 of the bill as
section 2189 and conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
____
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Shadegg
In title V, at the end of chapter 3 of subtitle H (page
609, after line 21) add the following:
SEC. __. PILOT STUDY TO MOVE WARNING SYSTEMS INTO THE MODERN
DIGITAL AGE.
(a) Pilot Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, from
funds available for improving the national system to notify
the general public in the event of a terrorist attack, and in
consultation with the Attorney General and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies, the National Association of
State Chief Information Officers, and other stakeholders with
respect to public warning systems, shall conduct a pilot
study under which the Secretary may issue public warnings
regarding threats to homeland security using a warning system
that is similar to the AMBER Alert communications network.
(b) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report regarding the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the pilot study.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier
today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman) or her designee each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
This en bloc amendment has been agreed to in a bipartisan fashion
which supports the amendments that have been offered by the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
I encourage my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment and move
the process forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time in opposition to the amendments.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There is one bill, the firefighters bill, that is in here, we
considered that, and we had a debate on it. I just want to incorporate
by reference the problems with that legislation. It is not necessary
because firefighters can receive gifts, and if they want to immunize
the donor, they can do that under present law.
Furthermore, the answer to giving firefighters more equipment is in
funding first responders equipment, rather than tort reform. So I would
hope that we would consider that as we consider the en bloc amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence for yielding me time.
This is sort of like a deja vu discussion, that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have had this discussion before. I feel this
legislation is necessary. There are some States that have waived the
liability provisions to allow corporations to make donations of
equipment to fire companies without liability, which is very, very
important. A lot of these companies have very good and new equipment,
hardly used because their fire needs are not as great as regular fire
companies. They are willing to make this donation, but they are
reluctant to do so because of the liability issues.
{time} 1015
A few States have waived those provisions but others have not. We
simply would allow this throughout this country. I cannot imagine
anything that is more dutiful or more beneficial to fighting fires in
this country than this.
So he opposed this before, and I said at the time, I hope he is the
only one who is opposing this, and, he almost was. There were three
people who opposed it. It carried by 397 to 3. Obviously, it has to do
with what we are dealing with in this country in terms of terrorism, in
terms of the problems of dealing with security in the United States of
America, intelligence and all those other areas. Quite frankly, it is
something that a lot of people want to get done, but we have got to
find the vehicle for it, and this is a proper vehicle.
It was unopposed and that is the reason it was put in the en bloc
amendment, agreed to by Members on both sides of the aisle. My sense is
this is something that each and every one of us should be supporting so
that both our rural and our urban fire departments can take advantage
of this particular type of law and have emergency vehicles and other
equipment donated to them without that concern of liability.
I would hope that his concerns about that, which he has expressed,
would not lead to opposition to the en bloc amendment and, hopefully,
ultimately, the passage of this, and we will all be protected.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Delaware
has indicated, we have had this debate before, and I would just point
out that my concerns with parts of the amendment are outweighed by the
support of the other provisions in the other bills in the bloc. So I
will not be opposing the bloc.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 10
which is identical to legislation I introduced, H.R. 1787, the ``Good
Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act.'' On September 14 this
legislation overwhelming passed the U.S. House of Representatives 397
to 3.
My amendment removes a barrier which currently prevents some
organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to fire
departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability
has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment, rather than
donating it to volunteer, rural and other financially-strapped
departments.
We know that every day, across the United States, firefighters
respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and
women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We
may presume that our firefighters work in departments with the latest
and best firefighting and protective equipment. When in reality there
are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to
a lack of basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it
difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. At the
same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the
fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art
innovation. Sometimes, the surplus equipment has never been used to put
out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many
organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of
quality fire equipment.
Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable
service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer
firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion
a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than
19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer.
Ten states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana,
Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Texas have passed similar
legislation. In the seven years of the Texas program more than $12
million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to
needy departments--this includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles, more
than 1,500 piece of communications equipment. In total more than 33,000
items have been donated.
Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil
liability barriers. Equipping our nation's first responders is
essential as we fight the war on terror and I am
[[Page H8878]]
hopeful the esteemed Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and my
colleagues will again join me in supporting this measure.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
sponsored by the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
This Sense of Congress sets out the right approach for this nation to
move toward the digital television transition and return much-needed
spectrum for public-safety and advanced commercial purposes, such as
wireless broadband. The Congress, the Federal Communications
Commission, as well as the telecommunications industry have spent
valuable time and money for the advancement of the transition. A hard
date will bring certainty to all those involved in this transition.
The Senate, in its just passed National Intelligence Reform bill,
included a 2008 hard deadline for broadcasters to vacate only portions
of the 700 MHz spectrum reserved for public safety. I do not believe
this is the correct approach, nor do I believe that it adequately
solves the public safety issue.
I commend the Chairman for his amendment and I look forward to our
continued work as we move from an analog to a digital world.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amendment offered by
my colleague and good friend, Mr. Shadegg of Arizona.
Mr. Shadegg is a distinguished Member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security and ably serves as Chairman of its Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness & Response.
Under Chairman Shadegg's leadership, the EP&R Subcommittee recently
held a very informative and eye-opening hearing on the state of our
Nation's warning and alert system.
The Amendment that he is offering today is the product of that
excellent hearing.
I commend Chairman Shadegg for his foresight in recognizing the
importance of emergency warnings and alerts, and for his leadership in
offering this important Amendment.
It is simply imperative that our Nation maintain and operate an
effective emergency communication system. It is our responsibility to
ensure that our citizens receive sufficient and timely warnings to
enable them to take action necessary for their safety--whether the
cause is a terrorist attack or a force of nature.
This Amendment authorizes a pilot study examining whether a system
like the AMBER Alert network should, and can, be used for emergency
warnings and alerts. The AMBER Alert network, which provides actionable
intelligence on a geographic basis to help identify and track missing
children, is a proven success. This Amendment is certainly worthy of
our support.
Let me again commend Chairman Shadegg. And I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the Shadegg Amendment.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Mica amendment, which will go a long way in making certain our
skies are safe and free of terrorism.
I would like to focus my comments on important provisions in this
amendment that will help ensure the civil liberties of all of America's
citizens are protected during this war on terrorism. I thank Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman Mica for including this language in his
amendment, which I had submitted to the Rules Committee as a separate
amendment.
There is no question that we should be vigilant in our fight against
terrorism or that increased security measures will serve to
inconvenience some of our citizens. However, forcing certain law-
abiding citizens to be repeatedly detained and questioned each time
they travel should not be tolerated.
This amendment will establish a process for the Transportation
Security Administration to ensure those passengers who are erroneously
flagged under its new pre-screening system are not unnecessarily
delayed on future flights.
To illustrate the importance of addressing this issue, I would like
to highlight an example of a family in my district who has been
repeatedly delayed when traveling.
The most recent case occurred this summer, when returning from an
oversees trip. The family was met by officials as they deplaned and
escorted to a holding room at JFK Airport. During their detainment,
officials thoroughly inspected the family's luggage and would not even
allow them to go to the restroom without escort. The family was
extensively questioned about their background and employment.
It took over three hours for the officials to clear and release the
family. Unfortunately, the long delay caused them to miss their
connecting flight to California.
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, this family was
delayed due to the nature of our law enforcement databases, which can
give rise to ``near matches'' and ``tentative hits,'' resulting in
misidentification scenarios.
This was not the first time this family was delayed because of the
similarity of their name to names that appear on watch lists.
Unfortunately, according to the Department of Homeland Security, it
will not be the last--the family should expect similar detainment in
the future because of this shortcoming in our law enforcement
databases.
Some of you might say that this is the price American citizens of
Middle-Eastern descent must pay to ensure safety in our skies.
But we must ask ourselves--how do we protect those unfortunate
Americans, who share names that are similar to dangerous people on
terrorist watch lists, from being effectively denied the ability to
fly?
There is no question that we must encourage our security officials to
be vigilant. But, it is reasonable to expect that the Transportation
Security Administration be able to maintain their watch lists to ensure
that the system does not continue to erroneously flag the same law-
abiding citizens every time they try to travel on a plane.
I believe this can be done in a way that maintains aviation security,
improves the effectiveness of watch lists, and demonstrates to our
fellow Americans of Middle-Eastern descent that America affords the
same freedoms and opportunities to all of its law-abiding citizens,
even during this war on terrorism.
Specifically, this amendment will: establish a timely and fair
process for individuals identified as a threat to appeal the
determination and correct any erroneous information; include a method
by which TSA will be able to maintain a record of air passengers who
have been misidentified; and prevent repeated delays of misidentified
passengers by ensuring the record contain information determined by TSA
to authenticate the identity of such a passenger.
As we work toward policies that secure our homeland, we must not
forget that there are U.S. citizens who are of Middle Eastern descent.
They have greatly contributed to American society and are deserving of
equal treatment under the Constitution of the United States.
These various cultures and races became citizens of the United States
just as our ancestors did, and they are our neighbors, co-workers,
friends, and family members. Most of all, they are our fellow
Americans.
It is unfortunate that these Americans have been forced to bear the
brunt of our increased security.
In the past, when American law enforcement confronted challenges to
our safety and security from espionage, drug trafficking and organized
crime, we were able to meet those challenges in ways that preserved our
fundamental freedoms and civil liberties.
We must meet the challenge of terrorism with this same careful regard
for the Constitutional rights of Americans and respect for all human
beings.
Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
unanimously approved these provisions and I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment today.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Barton Amendment.
Part of the spectrum which the broadcasters are to return at the end
of the DTV transition has been earmarked for public safety
interoperable radio communications. The tragic events of 9/11
underscore the need for this, and that is why we must move with
deliberate speed to complete the transition.
But moving with deliberate speed does not mean moving recklessly, and
it does not mean grasping at well-intentioned half-measures that would
either cause scores of television stations to literally go dark or
would actually set us back in our efforts to get spectrum into the
hands of public safety because they are riddled with ill-defined
exceptions.
Moreover, we need to consider consumers' analog television sets which
could go dark once broadcasters cease analog broadcasts--if we do not
take care to do this right. Helping public safety and minimizing
consumer disruptions need not be mutually goals.
I support the Barton amendment because it says that we should impose
a hard-date for the end of the entire transition as part of a
comprehensive digital television transition bill to be enacted next
Congress. I look forward to working in the Energy and Commerce
Committee next Congress on this and other proposals to minimize
consumer disruptions, focusing on how to get low-cost digital-to-analog
converter boxes into the hands of consumers, not to mention other
policy matters that are relevant to the transition. The Barton
Amendment signs us up to move--not with reckless abandon--but with
deliberate speed to ensure that we really get spectrum into the hands
of public safety in an expeditious fashion.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Barton Amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fossella-
Stupak amendment. From the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to
the attacks on September 11, 2001, the inability of our first
responders to communicate adequately and effectively has posed a
serious obstacle to our Nation's ability to respond to acts of
terrorism and other emergencies.
Regrettably, there is no silver bullet or panacea that will enable us
to attain interoperable
[[Page H8879]]
communications overnight. And, contrary to the good intentions of some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, merely throwing more
money at the problem or creating new grant programs is not the answer.
We already have enough programs.
Indeed, since 2002, the Federal government has awarded more than $1.2
billion in grant assistance specifically for the purpose of enhancing
interoperable communications. And, unfortunately, our progress has been
disappointing. The primary reason for this--according to the Government
Accountability Office--is that Federal interoperable communications
grant programs ``present challenges to short- and long-term planning.''
That is why I rise in support of the Fossella-Stupak Amendment. It
does not create a new interoperable communications grant program.
Rather, it gives the Department of Homeland Security much needed
flexibility to support State and local short- and long-term planning
for interoperable communications.
Specifically, under the Fossella-Stupak Amendment, the Department may
issue Letters of Intent to commit future funding for interoperable
communications for up to three years. These commitments must be made
pursuant to existing grant programs.
States and local governments have been reluctant to invest in
expensive and complicated communication systems due to uncertainty over
the availability of Federal funds from year to year. Providing cash-
strapped States and local governments with reasonable assurance that
multi-year Federal assistance will be available should spur
comprehensive planning and meaningful investments in communications.
The Fossella-Stupak Amendment also requires applicants to develop
multi-year interoperable communication plans. Such plans are essential
for long-term planning, such as coordinating communications strategies
with different agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, and for
preventing funds from being wasted on hastily planned systems.
I understand that numerous fire service and law enforcement groups,
State and local government organizations, and other entities
representing the public safety community played a key role in drafting
this Amendment. They and I support this Amendment, and so should you.
I commend Representatives Fossella and Stupak for their leadership
and vision in offering this important Amendment.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly
encourage my colleagues to support this Amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Chairman Barton that the
digital television transition has taken too long and that we need to
quickly get our police officers, firefighters, and other first
responders an additional 24 megahertz of spectrum to help them safely
do their jobs. This spectrum, currently occupied by television channels
63, 64, 68, and 69, is set to be turned over to first responders once
the stations broadcasting on those channels transition to digital. Can
the federal government speed this up?
Some have proposed getting first responders this spectrum more
quickly by requiring certain broadcasters to return their spectrum by
the end of 2006. This suggestion, though well intentioned, is a
simplistic approach to a complex problem. It does not ensure that the
public safety sector will be ready to use this new spectrum. Also, this
suggestion, by supplanting certain broadcasters directly, and shutting
down others to prevent interference, will prevent many consumers from
receiving important programming such as local news and weather.
Finally, it will also disproportionately harm the Hispanic community by
shutting down a number of Spanish-language stations.
Likewise, the amendment before us today does not reflect the
complexity of this issue. Although I agree with Chairman Barton that we
need to speed up the digital transition, the amendment declares that we
should establish a hard deadline of December 31, 2006, when all analog
television broadcasts on all channels would cease. Such an absolute
declaration is premature. It would not allow enough time for affordable
equipment to come to market or to properly educate consumers about the
transition. Moreover, it could result in many consumers losing their
television service. That must not happen.
Congress needs to address the digital transition issue soon in a
comprehensive way, addressing, among others, three major issues. First,
we need to expedite public safety's access to new spectrum and provide
them with certainty so they know when they will be receiving new
spectrum. Certainty will allow first responders time to plan how to use
the spectrum. It will also allow them time to line up the funding
necessary to make use of the spectrum once it becomes available.
Second, we need to implement a far-reaching plan to educate consumers
on what will happen once the digital transition is complete. It is
important that consumers know when the transition will take place, how
it will take place, and what it means for them with regard to their
television viewing.
Third, consumers should not bear unfair cost burdens, and we need to
have a program in place to provide subsidies so that no one is left
behind as the United States transitions to digital television.
I am pleased that Chairman Barton recognizes the need to tackle these
issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I cannot
support the amendment before us today because it is premature and could
lead to consumers losing their television service.
I am confident, however, that regardless of which party controls the
House next Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will work on
a bipartisan basis to properly address these issues in a way that will
speed up the digital transition, provide certainty to public safety
regarding new spectrum, and protect consumers from losing their
television service.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have offered makes several
non-controversial, but important changes:
First, it prevents a repeat of the ``Cat Stevens'' incident.
On September 21st, Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, was
allowed to board United Flight 919 from London to Washington, DC.
The plane was hundreds of miles over the Atlantic before it was
discovered that Mr. Islam was on the terrorist watchlist. Fortunately,
the plane was diverted to Maine without incident. That plane should
never have left the ground with Mr. Islam on board.
My amendment requires DHS to compare the names of international
passengers to the terrorist watch-lists prior to the flight's
departure, and it ensures that future flights will not take off with
known terrorists on board.
Secondly, my amendment requires TSA to establish an appeal process
for passengers wrongly placed on terror watchlists.
It also establishes a process for DHS to track passengers erroneously
flagged under the Department's new pre-screening system.
The watchlists are incredibly important tools, but they are far from
perfect.
Last week, I learned that several members of Congress, including the
Chairman of the Transportation Committee, have been prevented from
boarding airliners because they shared the first and last name of
someone on the watchlist.
This provision will ensure that they and others are not unnecessarily
delayed on future flights.
Lastly, this amendment directs the Department of Homeland Security to
take all necessary actions to expedite the installation and use of
advanced in-line baggage-screening equipment at commercial airports.
I am disappointed that language to provide innovative non-Federal
financing for these systems was not included in H.R. 10 due to
shortsighted CBO scorekeeping.
However, I do believe the Administration has the authority to pursue
this approach, and hopefully, this section will encourage them to do
so.
We worked closely with members on both sides of the aisle to develop
this amendment. A similar amendment passed the Transportation Committee
unanimously last week and I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor
of this amendment.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Amendment
being offered by Mr. Barton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. First, I would like to thank Chairman Barton for his
leadership on this issue. I agree with Chairman Barton that H.R. 10 is
not the vehicle by which to effectively transition this precious public
spectrum to public safety and valuable commercial and non-licensed
uses. In order to address all issues and concerns, we must take a
comprehensive approach and develop a comprehensive solution so that our
first responders receive all the tools they need and the American
people receive the unimaginable benefits of digital technology. The
Senate proposal is the wrong approach and I hope we will work to
accomplish our goal in a more all-inclusive process focusing on all
broadcast issues. We cannot effectively address the digital transition
piece by piece. I look forward to working with Chairman Barton on this
very important issue in order to find a date that is appropriate and
achievable in order to effectively transition to that new and exciting
digital age of television that will promote public safety, encourage
innovation, create jobs, and benefit all Americans.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense
of the Congress that the way to get valuable spectrum promptly into the
hands of public safety officials without shutting off consumers'
televisions is to enact comprehensive, hard-deadline digital television
legislation.
The Senate-passed 9/11 bill, however, requires the return of only a
portion of that spectrum, rather than all the spectrum that
broadcasters are currently using for analog broadcasts. Broadcasters
estimate that these provisions would shut off as many as 75 stations.
[[Page H8880]]
Many of these broadcasters carry major networks in major markets.
Because the Senate bill does not require the other broadcasters to
vacate their analog spectrum, there will be nowhere to relocate these
75 stations.
By waiting until the 109th Congress set a date-certain for all
broadcasters to clear the spectrum they use for analog broadcasts, we
can turn spectrum over to public safety sooner, and all broadcasters
will be able to move to their final digital channels. The remaining
spectrum can be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as
wireless broadband. Some of the billions of dollars generated can then
be used for digital-to-analog converter boxes so that households
relying on over-the-air analog broadcasts can continue to use their
analog televisions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the Sense of the
Congress that the responsible policy should be to address this issue
comprehensively through regular order, not in a piecemeal fashion on a
bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I look forward
next year to working with Ranking Minority Member Dingell, Subcommittee
Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Markey, along
with all of the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to pass
hard-deadline legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment so that public safety gets its needed spectrum without making
televisions go dark.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 10 printed in House Report 108-751.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Foley
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. Offered by Mr. Foley:
Page 328, after line 7, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly)
Subtitle F--Treatment of Aliens Who Commit Acts of Torture,
Extrajudicial Killings, or Other Atrocities Abroad
SEC. 3121. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS WHO
HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE OR EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS ABROAD.
(a) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``has engaged in conduct
that is defined as genocide for purposes of the International
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is
inadmissible'' and inserting ``ordered, incited, assisted, or
otherwise participated in conduct outside the United States
that would, if committed in the United States or by a United
States national, be genocide, as defined in section 1091(a)
of title 18, United States Code, is inadmissible'';
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial
killings.--Any alien who, outside the United States, has
committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise
participated in the commission of--
``(I) any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of
title 18, United States Code; or
``(II) under color of law of any foreign nation, any
extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the
Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);
is inadmissible.''; and
(3) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Participants
in nazi persecution or genocide'' and inserting
``Participants in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(b) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4)(D) of such Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``clause (i) or (ii)'' and inserting
``clause (i), (ii), or (iii)''; and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Assisted in
nazi persecution or engaged in genocide'' and inserting
``Participated in nazi persecution, genocide, or the
commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to offenses committed before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3122. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
PARTICULARLY SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.
(a) Ground of Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(G) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(G)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(G) Foreign government officials who have committed
particularly severe violations of religious freedom.--Any
alien who, while serving as a foreign government official,
was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time,
particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as
defined in section 3 of the International Religious Freedom
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6402), is inadmissible.''.
(b) Ground of Deportability.--Section 237(a)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Participated in the commission of severe violations
of religious freedom.--Any alien described in section
212(a)(2)(G) is deportable.''.
SEC. 3123. WAIVER OF INADMISSIBILITY.
Section 212(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)'';
and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and 3(E)'' and
inserting ``and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E)''.
SEC. 3124. BAR TO GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR ALIENS WHO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF TORTURE, EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS, OR SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.
Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) one who at any time has engaged in conduct described
in section 212(a)(3)(E) (relating to assistance in Nazi
persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts
of torture or extrajudicial killings) or 212(a)(2)(G)
(relating to severe violations of religious freedom).''.
SEC. 3125. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of
Special Investigations with the authority to detect and
investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to
denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security in making
determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or
extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
``(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take
against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E),
consideration shall be given to--
``(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the
laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the
basis for removal and denaturalization; or
``(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a
foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a
prosecution for such conduct.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the additional duties established under section
103(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (as added by
this subtitle) in order to ensure that the Office of Special
Investigations fulfills its continuing obligations regarding
Nazi war criminals.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to paragraph (1) are authorized to remain available until
expended.
SEC. 3126. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary
of Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on implementation of this subtitle that includes a
description of--
(1) the procedures used to refer matters to the Office of
Special Investigations and other components within the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security
in a manner consistent with the amendments made by this
subtitle;
(2) the revisions, if any, made to immigration forms to
reflect changes in the Immigration and Nationality Act made
by the amendments contained in this subtitle; and
(3) the procedures developed, with adequate due process
protection, to obtain sufficient evidence to determine
whether an alien may be inadmissible under the terms of the
amendments made by this subtitle.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of our amendment, the Foley-Ackerman
amendment to H.R. 10, the Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act that will
help strengthen our Nation's security.
Every year, according to Amnesty International, an estimated 800 to
1,000 war criminals and human rights abusers seek refuge in the United
States.
[[Page H8881]]
Due to loopholes in current law, these criminals could be living in our
States, in our towns, and even in our neighborhoods. There is nothing
in current U.S. law to bar such monsters from the United States or to
legally justify their removal from our country.
This headline, the INS says it cannot deport them. The Justice
Department will not prosecute them. Torturers, death squad leaders, and
human rights criminals who seek refuge in the United States have
nothing to fear except their victims.
Let me be perfectly clear: Torturers are terrorists. Many of us here
today probably think of torturers as domestic terrorists, those just
committing unspeakable crimes in their own Nations, but that cannot be
further from the truth.
Let us look at the facts. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba,
Sudan, the former regimes in Afghanistan, the Taliban, and Iraq, they
are all State sponsors of terrorism, and all have some of the worst
human rights records in history. They detain people for indefinite
periods of time, commit brutal acts of torture and kill with little
regard for human life. We would be naive to believe that torturers and
terrorists are in many ways not one in the same.
The Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation amendment, which the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and I have worked on for over 4\1/2\
years, we are offering it today, will give the Federal Government
another weapon in our war on terror. This amendment will, among other
things, make aliens who commit torture or other human rights violations
inadmissible and removable.
This bipartisan and bicameral provision will strengthen H.R. 10 by
adding additional layers to our immigration laws, barring these
criminals with clear ties to terror from even entering our country.
For decades, those who have committed some of the most horrific acts
against humanity have sought sanctuary here with impunity. This
amendment would strip their protection once and for all. We cannot let
these criminals continue to be around our families any longer. They
have committed crimes against their own people. They have committed
crimes against the United States. They have committed crimes against
humanity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the
time in opposition and will be in favor of the legislation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I want to say it has been a privilege to work with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on a completely nonpartisan basis
for almost half a decade on this particular legislation.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment closes the loophole that currently
allows war criminals who enter the United States to remain in the
United States. This measure enjoys bipartisan support in both the House
and the Senate. A bill sponsored by the chairman and ranking Democrat
on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, has
been reported out of the Judiciary Committee in that body.
At this very moment, with our Nation engaged in a conflict in Iraq,
which previously had a regime that committed every kind of grotesque
criminal behavior that our Nation deplores, the U.S. Code provides no,
again, no, assurance that Saddam Hussein's henchmen, Iraqi war
criminals, perpetrators of torture or atrocities from there or other
places could not somehow come into the United States and enjoy the very
benefits that they have so cruelly deprived of others.
It is hard to believe but it is true. Some of Saddam Hussein's most
brutal thugs, if they were able to hide their past and slip past the
INS, they could conceivably apply and receive either U.S. permanent
resident status or even possibly citizenship.
How do we know this? Because war criminals from other conflicts have
been surreptitiously coming to the United States since World War II. We
cannot continue to leave the United States open to monsters who have
committed horrible atrocities against innocent civilians, and we need
to slam that door shut and to shut it tightly. We must also capture
those war criminals who have already entered the United States and show
them the door.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment provides the Justice Department's Office
of Special Investigation, the OSI, with the statutory authority to hunt
down these thugs and criminals and, through the courts, remove them
from our country.
The OSI is currently tasked with finding and expelling Nazi war
criminals seeking to evade the consequences of their unprecedented and
horrific crimes. Since its creation in 1979, this elite team of
prosecutors and investigators has been methodically removing Nazi war
criminals who were able to sneak into the United States. Based on its
terrific past performance, its current readiness, and most critically,
its desire to perform the mission, OSI is the right agency to ensure
that this land remain free from the most vile criminals and violators
of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, the very notion that anyone who has perpetuated
genocide or committed these horrible crimes, these acts of torture,
would be able to get into the United States is shocking enough. The
fact that there is currently no law on the books to find these
criminals and to remove them from our country is even worse. War
criminals should have no safe haven or refuge anywhere, least of all in
this land of liberty, and that is why I am encouraging all of our
colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote in support of the Foley-Ackerman
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Claims.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foley-
Ackerman amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation
Act. This important amendment will close a longstanding gap that has
allowed thousands of aliens who have tortured or otherwise abused the
human rights of untold numbers in their home country to live in the
United States.
They are living here in our country the lives that many of their
victims will never enjoy. As we continue our war on terror, we must do
everything in our power to make sure that our Federal agencies have the
tools they need to ensure our safety.
The Foley-Ackerman amendment will take such a step. This amendment
will keep our country safe by barring admission into the United States
and authorizing the deportation of any foreigner who has committed acts
of torture or other human rights abuses abroad.
These criminals have committed some of the most atrocious acts ever
imagined by mankind. We can no longer be a safe haven for those who
seek to do us harm and have proven this by doing grave harm to others
in the countries they have fled.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important
amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for the time.
I rise to support this amendment because it spells out that
immigrants who have committed torture or extrajudicial killings abroad
are not eligible to enter the United States, and it changes the
provisions that makes immigrants inadmissible if they have committed
acts of genocide. The amendment also expands an existing bar against
government officials who have committed severe violations of religious
freedom.
I want to thank and commend the two gentlemen, and that is why I
believe it is very important that H.R. 10 is clearly stripped of any
violations of the convention against torture and to make sure that as
we are consistent in
[[Page H8882]]
denying into the United States those who would commit genocide, torture
and other heinous acts, that we accept the responsibility of having the
high moral ground, making sure that no legislation that we pass would
deport any alien to a place where they might be tortured and subjected
to such horrific acts.
This is a very strong amendment. It puts us on the right side of the
column, protecting those who would be subjected to the violence of
those who would be interested in coming to this country, and I support
the gentlemen in this amendment and would ask that we also consider the
elimination of such language in our own H.R. 10. I support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
has one-half minute remaining.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield
our time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler),
Richard Krieger from my district, who brought this important issue to
our attention who has been diligently tracking and identifying these
criminals.
Let me read a couple of names: Marko Boskic, Bosnia, member of a
group that killed 1,200 Bosnian Muslims in one day; Major General Jean-
Claude Duperval, Haiti, implicated in the massacre at Raboteau, Haiti,
1994; Nikola Vukovic, beat Bosnian Muslims with rifles and metal pipes;
Mohamed Ali Samatar from Somalia, oversaw the killing of more than
50,000 northern Somali Issaks; Abdi Ali Nur from Somalia, assisted in
sham trials and the execution of hundreds of civilians. That is just a
few of them.
I will enter this into the Record at this point so people can see.
TABLE OF INDIVIDUALS ACCUSED OF ATROCITIES
[Arranged by Time of Atrocity Committed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Country Crime Time of atrocities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ricardo Anderson Kohatsu.... Peru.................. Implicated in the torture 1997
of Leonor La Rosa and
Mariela Lucy Barreto. La
Rosa was paralyzed,
Barreto was killed.
Marko Boskic....................... Bosnia................ Member of group that killed July 15, 1995
1,200 Bosnian Muslims in
one day.
Major Gen. Jean-Claude Duperval.... Haiti................. Implicated in massacre at 1994
Raboteau, Haiti.
Jean-Marie Vianney Mudahinyuka..... Rwanda................ Part of an elite group that 1994
ordered the killings of
500,000 Tutsis.
Nikola Vukovic..................... Bosnia................ Beat Bosnian Muslims with 1992-1994
rifles and metal pipes.
Carved a religious symbol
into the forehead of one
prisoner.
Emanuel ``Toto'' Constant.......... Haiti................. Created paramilitary 1991-1994
organization that killed
over 3,000 pro-democracy
activists.
Carl Dorelien...................... Haiti................. Oversaw the deaths of 5,000 1991-1994
people.
Zijad Muzic........................ Bosnia................ Ethnic cleansing of Croats 1991-1993
and Bosnian Muslims.
Jackson Joanis..................... Haiti................. Accused of torture and Early 1990s
murder.
Thioun Prasith..................... Cambodia.............. Implicated in the deaths of Late 1970s-1993
thousands of people.
Mohamed Ali Samatar................ Somalia............... Oversaw killing of more 1971-1990
than 50,000 northern
Somali Issaks.
Juan Lopez Grijalba................ Honduras.............. Military chief accused of 1980s
murder and torture of
civilians.
Jaime Ramirez Raudales............. Honduras.............. Charged with political 1980s
murders.
Abdi Ali Nur....................... Somalia............... Assisted in sham trials and Late 1980s
the executions of hundreds
of civilians.
Luis Discua........................ Honduras.............. Killed dozens of leftists 1980s
in Honduras.
Alvaro Rafael Saravia Marino....... Honduras.............. Murdered Salvadoran 1980
archbishop.
Kelbessa Negewo.................... Ethiopia.............. Tortured, beat and raped 1978
Ethiopians.
Armando Fernando Larios............ Chile................. Helped kill Chile's foreign 1976
minister.
Gen. Fernando Vecino Alegret, Vietnam............... Cuban interrogator that 1967
a.k.a. ``Fidel''. tortured American POWs
during Vietnam War.
Helmut Oberlander.................. Ukraine............... Belonged to Nazi death 1941-1943
squad that killed
thousands of Jews.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Iran: Pro-democracy Iranian Students tortured in 1970s.
Iraq: Dissidents against Ba'ath party regime systematically
tortured.
Afghanistan: Taliban.
Sources sorted by name of accused individuals:
1. Kohatsu: ``U.S. Becoming haven for Torturers.'' San
Diego Union Tribune, April 10, 2002.
2. Boskic: Rupert, James. ``Accused killer in Bosnian war
makes a life in U.S.'' New York Newsday, Sep. 13, 2004.
3. Duperval: Daniel, Trenton and Susannah A. Nesmith.
``Abusers back in the streets; Some of Haiti's most notorious
human rights abusers walk the streets openly now.'' The Miami
Herald. March 15, 2004.
4. Mudahinyuka: Korecki, Natasha. ``More charges for Rwanda
suspect.'' Chicago Sun-Times. May 15, 2004.
5.Vukovic: Dart, Bob. ``U.S. is a haven for foreign war
criminals.'' Austin American Statesman. April 11, 2002.
6. Constant: ``Torture suspects find haven in U.S.'' Miami
Herald. Aug. 1, 2001.
7. Dorelien: Wilber, Del Quentin. ``Rights abusers can find
haven.'' Baltimore Sun. Aug. 28, 2000.
8. Muzic: Fainaru, Steve. ``Suspect in `cleansing' by Serbs
living in Vt.'' The Boston Globe. May 3, 1999.
9. Joanis: Benjamin, Jody A. ``Haitian enforcer makes bid
to stay put.'' Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. June. 22, 2001.
10. Prasith: Fifield, Adam. ``Apologist in suburbia.'' The
Village Voice. May 5, 1998.
11. Samatar: Ragavan, Chitra. ``A safe haven, but for
whom?'' U.S. News and World Report. Nov. 15, 1999.
12. Grijalba: ``Foley introduces bill to stop influx of
criminals here.'' Sun-Herald.com. April 4, 2003. http://
www.sun-herald.com.
13. Raudales: Valbrun, Marjorie. ``U.S. to pursue torturers
who flee here--Move seeks to address `nexus' between human-
rights abusers and national-security risks.'' The Wall Street
Journal. May 8, 2003.
14. Abdi Ali Nur: Ragavan, Chitra. ``A safe haven, but
whom?'' U.S. News and World Report. Nov. 15, 1999.
15. Discua: ``Foley introduces bill to stop influx of
criminals here.'' Sun-Herald.com. April 4, 2003. http://
www.sun-herald.com
16. Marino: Charvy, Alfonso and Elizabeth Donovan.
``Torture suspects find haven.'' The Miami Herald. July 22,
2001.
17. Negewo: Dart, Bob. ``U.S. is a haven for torturers,
report says; many settle here illegally.'' The Atlanta-
Journal Constitution. April 11, 2002.
18. Larios: Valbrun, Marjorie. ``U.S. to pursue torturers
who flee here--Move seeks to address `nexus' between human-
rights abusers and national-security risks.'' The Wall Street
Journal. May 8, 2003.
19. Alegret a.k.a. ``FIDEL'': Alfonso, Pablo and Sonji
Jacobs. ``Ex-POW identifies Cuban dignitary as his chief
tormentor.'' The Miami Herald. Sep. 9, 1999.
20. Oberlander: Staletovitch, Jenny. ``New law would send
modern war criminals packing.'' The Palm Beach Post. Jan. 18,
2000.
These are articles from papers about criminals living in the United
States.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this very important national
security measure. I thank my legislative counsel and legal director,
Bradley Schreiber, and my staff for working so diligently.
As I mentioned, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and I have
been doing this now for 4\1/2\ plus years. It has finally come to
fruition. We thank our colleagues. We urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-751.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Goodlatte:
Page 235, after line 21, insert the following:
Subtitle J--Pretrial Detention and Postrelease Supervision of
Terrorists
SEC. 2221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Pretrial Detention and
Lifetime Supervision of Terrorists Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2222. PRESUMPTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION IN CASES
INVOLVING TERRORISM.
Section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by inserting ``or'' before ``the Maritime''; and
(B) by inserting after ``or 2332b of title 18 of the United
States Code'' the following: ``, or
[[Page H8883]]
an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of
the United States Code, if the Attorney General certifies
that the offense appears by its nature or context to be
intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnaping, or an offense
involved in or related to domestic or international terrorism
as defined in section 2331 of title 18 of the United States
Code''; and
(2) in subsections (f)(1)(A) and (g)(1), by inserting after
``violence'' the following: ``, or an offense listed in
section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 of the United States Code,
if the Attorney General certifies that the offense appears by
its nature or context to be intended to intimidate or coerce
a civilian population, to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the
conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnaping, or an offense involved in or related to
domestic or international terrorism as defined in section
2331 of title 18 of the United States Code''.
SEC. 2223. POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION OF TERRORISTS.
Section 3583(j) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
in subsection (j), by striking ``, the commission'' and all
that follows through ``person,''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
{time} 1030
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply create a rebuttable
presumption that no amount of bail or other conditions would assure the
appearance in court of a defendant when he is charged with a terrorist
offense and there is probable cause that the defendant committed
certain terrorist acts. This bill simply creates a rebuttable
presumption which can be overcome by evidence that the defendant would
appear in court.
This presumption that a defendant would not show up in court already
applies to those who are charged with major drug crimes and certain
violent crimes. If it is good enough for drug dealers and violent
criminals, it should be good enough for terrorists. It is simply too
risky to trust terrorists who have been charged with terrorist offenses
to return to court to be tried. We should not allow these criminals to
roam free in our streets while they await trial.
In addition, this bill would help prevent further terrorist attacks
by giving judges the discretion to impose a term of supervised relief
up to life for terrorists who have been convicted of terrorist
offenses. Currently, the law provides that only those who committed
terrorist offenses which either resulted in or created a foreseeable
risk of death could be supervised for a term of years up to life after
being released. This bill would make clear that post-trial supervision
is available for all victim terrorists, not just those whose terrorist
acts happen to result in death.
This amendment only authorizes a court to impose the supervised
relief of a terrorist. It does not mandate any particular term of
supervised relief for any particular criminal, nor does it mandate that
any supervised release be imposed at all. It leaves that decision up to
the courts based on the facts and circumstances of each individual
case.
In addition, current law already gives courts the authority to modify
or end the period of supervised release if the court determines that
the criminal's conduct and circumstances so warrant. This safeguard is
not changed by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes simple changes to current Federal
criminal law to ensure that those who have committed terrorist acts
will not attempt to harm our citizens again. I urge my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition for the minority, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds to the list of crimes for which the
presumption of detention occurs. It is an extraneous PATRIOT Act II
provision not sought by the 9/11 Commission. This puts the defendant in
a position where he has to prove the unprovable.
The Department of Justice has a bad record of detaining people who
should not be detained. Brendon Mayfield, a lawyer in Seattle, was
detained as a material witness in the Madrid train bombing. The
Department of Justice was subsequently forced to admit that they had
the wrong person, in that Mr. Mayfield had nothing to do with the
crime, notwithstanding the fact that he had been held on one of these
presumptions of detention.
I would hope we would consider this when we consider PATRIOT Act II.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the
gentleman from Virginia that this is freestanding legislation which I
have introduced. It has nothing to do with the so-called PATRIOT Act II
the gentleman refers to. It is a good measure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
This amendment would enhance public safety by denying pretrial release
to individuals accused of committing a terrorism offense. It would also
provide that any individual convicted of a terrorism offense could be
sentenced to supervised release for any term of years up to life.
Defendants in Federal cases who are accused of certain crimes are
presumptively denied pretrial release. For these crimes there is a
rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of that person as required for
the safety of the community.
The list of crimes currently includes drug offenses, carrying maximum
prison sentences of 10 years or more, but does not include most
terrorism offenses. Thus, persons accused of many drug offenses are
presumptively to be detained before trial, but no comparable
presumption exists for people accused of most terrorist crimes. This
makes no sense.
The continuing danger posed to national security by those who
materially support terrorism, who are the vital links in the chain of
any terrorist act, may be no less than that posed by the direct
perpetrators, the triggermen, of terrorist violence. And the court
should be afforded the same degree of discretion in prescribing post-
release supervision in all these cases as well.
The standard for every one of these amendments is whether or not this
language enhances the safety and security of this country. Clearly,
this amendment is a step in the right direction. It gives our courts
some of the same tools they have in drug cases. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking
member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss three subjects, the first
of which is this amendment. Although I listened carefully to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). I think many of the points he
makes are valid, and I agree with him that we should not be coddling
terrorists, but I think this amendment is ill timed and needs further
consideration by this House.
The gentleman has said that he is not participating in an effort to
expand the PATRIOT Act, but these ideas have been circulated in a
package called PATRIOT Act II. My view of the PATRIOT Act, which I
supported, is that next year is the right time to consider how to
expand or contract it.
I am a cosponsor of the SAFE Act, which would delete some provisions
of the PATRIOT Act that are egregious, but I have an open mind in
looking at some features of the PATRIOT Act which might be fine-tuned
to work more effectively. So for that reason, I oppose this amendment.
I also will oppose the Hostettler amendment, which will be offered in
a few minutes. I think it replaces the worst features of H.R. 10 with
some other bad features. Certainly, the outsourcing of terrorists, as
some of us have called it, which some Members of the majority including
the gentleman
[[Page H8884]]
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), agree would violate U.S. law and the
International Convention on Torture, is a terrible idea.
But there are other features of the Hostettler amendment that make
asylum much harder to get, and in ways that have nothing whatsoever to
do with finding and prosecuting terrorists, punish innocent immigrants.
That is not the purpose of the debate today.
Finally, I want to comment on the en bloc amendment which was just
offered and agreed to. I think it is a very good amendment, and the
features of it I want to talk about are the Barton amendment, and the
Fossella amendment, both of which have to do with interoperable
communications.
We have done almost nothing since
9/11 effectively to deal with the failure to have communications
equipment and adequate bandwidth with which to communicate, which was a
major problem in New York and a major problem at the Pentagon. This
administration is not even funding initiatives in this fiscal year for
interoperable communications, claiming there is enough money in the
pipeline.
The right answer is to free up some dedicated bandwidth for emergency
communications. There is a pending bill called the HERO Act, introduced
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and me, which has been
sadly withering on the vine for a year and a half, opposed by the
broadcasters. These two amendments will help with multiyear funding,
which we need for ports as well as interoperable communications, and
will help convey the sense of the Congress that makes it clear we have
to free up this bandwidth so that our first responders have the tools
that they need.
So as we proceed this morning, Mr. Chairman, I hope we are all paying
close attention to amendments. Some are good, some are less good. I
would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte),
however, that I think he is an extremely careful legislator and a very
good lawyer, and I hope that next year we can work together to craft
PATRIOT Act amendments both to eliminate provisions that do not work
and to enhance provisions that do work that will keep America safe,
find the bad guys, and protect our civil liberties and our
constitution.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her comments, but I
would also point out that we are engaged in the midst of a war against
terror right now and a lot is going to happen in the next year,
including the apprehension of people who, under appropriate
circumstances meet this standard, and we should have the opportunity
for the court, and this is a decision by the judge, not something that
is a mandatory decision, but the judge should have the discretion to
allow that the individual be held pending trial without bond.
Secondly, there will be people who have been convicted of terrorist
acts potentially released during that period of time, and if the court
finds it appropriate to authorize lifetime supervision, we ought to get
that supervision started now to keep track of people who have engaged
in terrorist acts and give the court the authority to undertake that
now, without waiting an additional year and expose our country to
greater risks that will occur during that time.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro temore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House
Report 108-751.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
Page 252, line 18, strike ``DEPORTATION'' and insert
``REMOVAL'' (and amend the table of contents accordingly).
Page 258, after line 5, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 3034. INADMISSIBILITY DUE TO TERRORIST AND TERRORIST-
RELATED ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(i) In general.--Any alien who--
``(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
``(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the
Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after
entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
``(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to
cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist
activity;
``(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of--
``(aa) a terrorist organization; or
``(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or
espouses terrorist activity;
``(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in
subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
``(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in
clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization;
``(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or
persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or
support a terrorist organization;
``(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in
section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or
on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training
was received, was a terrorist organization under section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi); or
``(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is
inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing
the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5
years,
is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official,
representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be
engaged in a terrorist activity.''.
(b) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined.--Section
212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended to read as follows:
``(iv) Engage in terrorist activity defined.--As used in
this subparagraph, the term `engage in terrorist activity'
means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an
organization--
``(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances
indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily
injury, a terrorist activity;
``(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
``(III) to gather information on potential targets for
terrorist activity;
``(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--
``(aa) a terrorist activity;
``(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I)
or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not
reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist
organization;
``(V) to solicit any individual--
``(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this
clause;
``(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
``(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described
in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by
clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and
should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization; or
``(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, affords material support, including a safe
house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of
funds or other material financial benefit, false
documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical,
biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or
training--
``(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
``(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably
should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist
activity;
``(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause
(I) or (II) of clause (vi); or
``(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause
(vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should
not reasonably have known, that the organization was a
terrorist organization.''.
(c) Terrorist Organization Defined.--Section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)) is amended to read as follows:
``(vi) Terrorist organization defined.--As used in this
section, the term `terrorist organization' means an
organization--
``(I) designated under section 219;
[[Page H8885]]
``(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the
Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation
with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization,
after finding that the organization engages in the activities
described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
``(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether
organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which
engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I)
through (VI) of clause (iv).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to--
(1) removal proceedings instituted before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) acts and conditions constituting a ground for
inadmissibility occurring or existing before, on, or after
such date.
SEC. 3035. DEPORTABILITY OF TERRORISTS.
(a) In General.--Section 237(a)(4)(B) (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien who would be
considered inadmissible pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (F)
of section 212(a)(3) is deportable.''.
(b) Deportation of Aliens Who Have Received Military-Type
Training From Terrorist Organizations.--Section 237(a)(4) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Recipient of military-type training.--Any alien who
has received military-type training (as defined in section
2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or on
behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was
received, was a terrorist organization, as defined in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi), is deportable.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to acts and conditions constituting a ground
for removal occurring or existing before, on, or after such
date.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my time is limited, so I will focus on just two aspects
of this amendment that come largely from my own legislation, H.R. 4942.
First, this amendment recognizes that our enemy is not merely the
terrorist who pulls the trigger or places the bomb or drives that rig
truck, it is also those who through their material support make the
violent act possible. They provide the training, they provide the
shelter, the ID documents, the resources, the intelligence, the many
dirty acts that help the chain of destruction. If we can break these
links in the terrorist chain, then the chain will fall apart.
The second thing these provisions do is common sense. It makes
material support of terrorism, especially those who participate in
military-style training, grounds for being inadmissible into this
country and grounds for deportation.
We are a welcoming country. I am the proud son of immigrants. But we
cannot allow our welcoming arms to be a tool for terrorists who seek
our downfall.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek the time in
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, no one is opposed to identifying and denying admission
to terrorists, and no one is opposed to deporting terrorists who are
found in the United States. However, we should not exclude or deport
someone as a terrorist who is an innocent person. This amendment would
make that possibility more likely by expanding the already overly broad
provisions for excluding and deporting individuals on terrorism
grounds.
The terrorist removal provisions presently in the Immigration
Nationality Act specify that terrorist organizations must be designated
by the Secretary of the Department of State. This amendment would
eliminate that requirement. This would greatly increase the possibility
that people will be excluded or deported on the basis of involvement
with an organization that has incorrectly been called a terrorist
organization.
{time} 1045
Moreover, I would be surprised if someone removed on that basis would
ever be allowed to return to the United States.
Under current law, involvement with a terrorist organization is not a
ground for removal unless that person knew or should have known that it
was a terrorist organization. We have seen this occur time and time
again, particularly after passage of the PATRIOT Act and, as well, as
it is related to many in the Muslim community. I believe that more
consideration needs to be given to these very important issues.
I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, no one is opposed to denying admission
to terrorists, and no one is opposed to deporting terrorists who are
found in the United States. However, we should not exclude or deport
someone as a terrorist who is an innocent person. This amendment would
make that possibility more likely by expanding the already overbroad
provisions for excluding and deporting individuals on terrorism
grounds.
The terrorist removal provisions presently in the Immigration and
Nationality Act specify that terrorist organizations must be designated
by the Secretary of the Department of State. This amendment would
eliminate that requirement. This would greatly increase the possibility
that people will be excluded or deported on the basis of involvement
with an organization that has incorrectly been called a ``terrorist
organization.'' Moreover, I would be surprised if someone removed on
that basis would ever be allowed to return to the United States.
Under current law, involvement with a terrorist organization is not a
ground for removal unless the person knew or should have known that it
was a terrorist organization. The amendment would require the alien to
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and
should not reasonably have known that it was a terrorist organization.
This would create a higher standard that would be much more difficult
to prove. In fact, I am not sure that it is possible to establish the
negative proposition that you did not know something.
Finally, the changes that this amendment would make would apply
retroactively, which would increase the likelihood of ensnaring
innocent people. I urge you to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary who has produced so many of
the important provisions of this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled why anybody would oppose this amendment.
The amendment simply states that if you cannot be admitted to the
United States because you are affiliated with a terrorist organization,
then you can be deported if you get in through one way or another. We
have a big problem with illegal aliens crossing both the northern and
the southern border. If you do not go through the passport check and
enter the United States illegally and you could not enter the United
States legally because you were a part of a terrorist organization,
then if this amendment goes down, you cannot kick them out. So it seems
to me that if you cannot get in and it is illegal for you to get in and
you do get in, anyhow, illegally, or by fooling an immigration
inspector, then the government ought to have the power to be able to
deport these people.
The amendment is as simple as that, meaning if they do get in when
they should not, they should be able to be removed and sent out of the
country and make America safer.
I urge support of the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just say that the important part of this is that the amendment
would require the alien to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that he did not know and should not reasonably have known that it was a
terrorist organization. This is a higher standard and would be much
more difficult to prove. And might I say we are adding this to a bill
that frankly the White House has indicated that it strongly opposes any
overbroad expansion of expedited removal. This is clearly in that
ballpark.
[[Page H8886]]
The administration has concerns with the overbroad alien
identification standards proposed by the bill and unrelated to security
concerns. All of these amendments that we will be talking about, we
have a clear statement by the White House that they oppose. But also my
understanding is that the chairman of the full Committee on the
Judiciary has indicated that he would not stand for the expansion of
section 411 of the PATRIOT Act. In fact, the chairman said that it will
be done ``over my dead body.'' This is what we are doing here right
now. Even if we do so, we need to do so with far more detailed review
and judicial committee hearings and the understanding of the imbalance
between civil liberties and respect for the judicial system and the
right of someone to go into the courts and prove otherwise than what we
are doing here under H.R. 10 which is supposed to be, as the 9/11
Commission has said, the overhaul of the U.S. intelligence agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment and commend my colleague from Wisconsin for his work on this
issue. Currently, terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of
the United States, but as soon as they set foot in the U.S. on tourist
visas, for example, we cannot deport them for many of the very same
offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those
alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. This amendment
makes aliens deportable for terrorist-related offenses to the same
extent that they would not be admitted in the first place to the United
States.
Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding
of how terrorist organizations operate. The Immigration and Nationality
Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material
support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation
if he can show that he did not know that the funds or support would
further the organization's terrorist activity. That is, his donation
did not immediately go to buying explosives. This notion is based on a
fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorist organizations operate.
As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for counterterrorism
at the State Department explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational
structure and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it
is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will
ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions,
regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support
nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.''
Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Dianne
Feinstein has rightly stated that, ``I simply do not accept that so-
called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from
their other operations.''
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think what is interesting to listen to today are the
arguments on the other side. Where they cannot win on the merits, they
choose to throw up a smoke screen of process, no matter how far off
point it may be. This amendment stands for a very simple proposition,
those who materially support terrorists, who make the terrorist act
possible by providing training, intelligence, logistics,
transportation, those who materially support terrorism should not be
here. They should not be allowed in this country; and if they are in
this country, they should be deported. We must have this tool. If we
are truly going to make this country safe, if we are truly going to
disrupt terrorism before the trigger is pulled or the bomb is set,
before lives are lost, we must have these tools.
Those who support terrorism intellectually through their training
support and harboring terrorists, those who operate and move in the
shadows of the terrorist operation, they do not belong here. They are
every bit as dangerous as the one who would pull the trigger. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a vitally important
tool in our overall effort in homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) is recognized to close for 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We do not want terrorists in this country and we certainly want to be
able to identify the terrorists as everyone might expect we would want
to do. This amendment is particularly overbroad, has an ability to wrap
up innocent individuals, and it goes against what the administration
has said. The administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion
of expedited removal authority.
Might I remind my colleagues of the unfortunate circumstances, though
they are someone different, of Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam, who came here
with all innocent purposes. In fact, his last years of work have been
in charitable work. Look what we tried to do with him. So many of our
constituents in the United States have Muslim names and are affiliated
with organizations who have good intentions but may be misconceived and
therefore they are wrapped up in this expedited removal.
This is something that needs to be done in a separate, bipartisan
manner, which is to have hearings, to get testimony, to understand the
depth of the need and how to craft something that works. Our own
chairman has indicated that we cannot by extension extend the PATRIOT
Act without considerable thought and I believe it is important when we
are defending our Nation to have considerable thought.
I would ask my colleagues to deny this amendment, to reject it, and I
ask us to focus on restoring the sense of integrity to our intelligence
system as the 9/11 Commission report argues for and the Maloney-Shays
bill argues for.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House
Report 108-751.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
Page 243, beginning on line 12, strike ``and the officer
determines that the alien has been physically present in the
United States for less than 1 year''.
Page 244, beginning on line 7, strike ``if the officer
determines that the alien has been physically present in the
United States for less than 1 year''.
Page 245, line 5, strike ``the central motive'' and insert
``a central reason''.
Page 254, strike line 6 and all that follows through line
24 on page 255 and insert the following:
SEC. 3032. DETENTION OF ALIENS BARRED FROM RESTRICTION ON
REMOVAL PENDING REMOVAL.
(a) In General.--Section 241 of Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1231) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j) Detention of Aliens Barred From Restriction on
Removal Pending Removal.--
``(1) In general.--In order to protect the United States
from those aliens who would threaten the national security or
endanger the lives and safety of the American people, the
Secretary of Homeland Security may, in the Secretary's
unreviewable discretion, determine that any alien who has
been ordered removed from the United States and who is
[[Page H8887]]
described in subsection (b)(3)(B) is a specially dangerous
alien and should be detained until removed. This
determination shall be reviewed every six months until the
alien is removed. In making this determination, the Secretary
shall consider the length of sentence and severity of the
offense, the loss and injury to the victim, and the future
risk the alien poses to the community.
``(2) Aliens granted protection restricting removal.--Any
alien described in paragraph (1) who has been ordered
removed, and who has been granted any other protection under
the immigration law, as defined in section 101(a)(17),
restricting the alien's removal, shall be detained. The
Secretary of State shall seek diplomatic assurances that such
alien shall be protected if removed from the United
States.''.
(b) Severability.--If any amendment, or part of any
amendment, made by subsection (a), or the application of any
amendment or part of any amendment to any person or
circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional--
(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to
seek the removal of any alien described in section 241(j)(1)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this
Act, consistent with any protection described in section
241(j)(2) of such Act; and
(2) the Secretary of State shall continue to seek
diplomatic assurances that any alien described in section
241(j)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended
by this Act, would be protected upon removal.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the
debate on this amendment to 20 minutes, equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is supported by
leadership, including Chairman Henry Hyde, and will protect the
American people from dangerous aliens while continuing our Nation's
proud history of providing refuge to the innocent oppressed. This
amendment will protect the American people in the same way as section
3032, which it replaces, would have. Section 3032 would have barred
aliens who posed a threat to the American public from seeking our
country's protection.
The courts have created a need to defend the American public against
such aliens. You see, the decisions of a few judges have turned what
was a clear congressional mandate authorizing the detention of
dangerous aliens who are facing removal into a confused and unworkable
mess. Congress has authorized the Attorney General to detain all aliens
who pose a risk to the community, including aliens granted protection
under the Convention Against Torture, until they can be removed from
the United States. The Supreme Court has read this provision, however,
to find that any alien who has been ordered deported but who cannot be
removed must be released, no matter how grave a danger the alien poses,
unless some ``special circumstance'' makes the alien especially
dangerous.
Congress' clear standard has eroded to the point that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Department of Homeland Security
authorities to release a dangerously insane alien who had accumulated
convictions for assault, harassment and rape. Why? Because the Supreme
Court had released a killer in the same circumstances, and the alien in
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' case had not actually killed
anyone. Under such logic, DHS cannot protect the public against an
alien who has been granted torture convention protection and who
therefore cannot be removed from the United States unless the alien has
done something more serious than killing another person.
This amendment will address the goals of section 3032 by giving the
Secretary of Homeland Security the tools to keep dangerous aliens
granted protection under the torture convention out of our communities,
off of our streets, and away from our children. It will authorize the
Secretary, in his unreviewable discretion, to detain aliens granted
such protection who pose a risk to the American people. In addition,
this amendment will continue our Nation's tradition of providing aliens
the opportunity to request asylum and torture convention relief while
at the same time ensuring that our country's generosity is not abused.
It would also amend section 3007 to reinforce the current burdens
governing asylum, with one exception. Aliens who claim that they need
asylum because they have been accused in connection with terrorist,
militant or guerilla activity must show that race, religion, membership
in a particular social group, nationality or political opinion is a
central reason for any claimed persecution. This amendment will protect
innocent aliens who come to our shores fleeing thugs and dictators,
while undoing an inappropriate burden imposed on our government by,
once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Contrary to law and logic, the Ninth Circuit has required the
government to prove that aliens claiming persecution because they have
been tied to terrorism are not eligible for asylum, instead of
requiring the aliens seeking protection to show that they are. My
subcommittee has discovered that Hesham Hedayet, who killed two
innocent bystanders at LAX on July 4, 2002, had tried to exploit this
loophole.
I must underscore again, however, the most important effect of this
amendment which is to give the Secretary of Homeland Security the
discretion to detain aliens who would pose a risk to the American
people if released.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we are about to embark on the debate on three
amendments dealing with three provisions of this bill that are very
important and I think the House should try to understand the context,
so I would like to use this initial time just to sort of set the table.
The majority in putting forth this bill on the floor used
intelligence reform and the compelling and legitimate concern about
terrorism to insert three obnoxious, overbroad and overreaching
provisions that flagrantly violate our convention against torture,
which the United States has signed and ratified, and threaten to send
people who are likely to be tortured back to their countries that will
torture them; to engage in a process that allows a massive deportation
of people, having nothing to do with terrorism, who are in this country
for less than 5 years, through expedited removal, in a fashion that
will not allow them a hearing, this is section 3006, that will not
allow them a hearing, that will not allow them to contact their
families, that will require them to establish they are either here
legally or have been here for more than 5 years by the documents on
their person, and, if not, to be detained and immediately removed from
this country, in total and in flagrant violation of existing processes,
taking a legitimate idea of expedited removal at our points of entry
and in establishing it to the country in its entirety throughout its
interior and to anyone who is here less than 5 years.
{time} 1100
Then, finally, in section 307 to massively alter the procedures and
tests for getting asylum in such a way as to fundamentally depart from
this country's tradition as a haven for refugees and people fleeing
because of a well-founded fear of persecution, based on their politics,
their gender, their religion, their ethnicity. These are horrible
provisions. They have nothing to do with terrorism.
Now we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana after
the White House counsel wrote the toughest letter we have seen saying
the notion that America is going to send somebody back to a country
where they are likely to be tortured is unconscionable, we do not
support it, we do not ask for this provision. He offers an amendment,
which is a smokescreen, a total smokescreen, that tries to pretend that
we are getting out of this problem by making amendments to three
sections, notwithstanding the fact that if his amendment were to pass
and the Smith amendments that follow his amendment to strike sections
306 and 307 were to lose, every one of these problems would still
exist.
[[Page H8888]]
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me this time.
Because of the strange conflict in current law, terrorists and
criminals who are not citizens of our country but for some reason get
here are, in fact, being released into our society. There are three
amendments, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pointed out.
I think it is better to debate them one at a time. That is why we do
that. We are going to vote on them one at a time.
This amendment is an important amendment because it deals with that
specific problem. I cannot believe anyone in this House would want
violent criminals from other countries who somehow get here to be able
to be released in our country. This amendment allows that those
criminals would be detained.
There is a great example of a Jordanian who was convicted in Jordan
of conspiracy to bomb a Jordanian school for American children. He is
convicted of a conspiracy where his goal, his target, was to kill
American children. He somehow got to this country.
Under the current interpretation of the courts, we cannot send him
back to Jordan because he might be tortured, but we also cannot detain
him. So in that interpretation this person is likely to be set free in
some community in the United States, a person who is conspiring to kill
American children in Jordan. So we would put him in a community of the
United States that is full of American children, nobody but American
children, to kill in that community? That cannot be allowed.
What the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Hostettler) amendment does is
address the concern that we all would have about sending anybody into a
place where they would be punished in a way that we would think was not
appropriate.
I have got to tell my colleagues the appropriateness to this body and
anywhere else and even as we would talk personally of a punishment for
some whose target was to kill American children, it is hard to imagine
how that punishment could be too difficult, but that is not what we are
about in this society. So this amendment would allow that person to be
detained.
If one catches a rattlesnake on one's farm, they do not look at it
and say, this is definitely a rattlesnake, let us go up and release it
in the front yard. What this amendment does is say, if they catch that
rattlesnake and they say we are going to be able detain this
rattlesnake, even though he did not commit his crime in the United
States. We are not going to let this criminal who was, in this case,
targeting American children, in other cases might be a murderer, in
other cases might be a rapist, in other cases might be a pedophile, we
are not going to let this person go and release him in our community
simply because we have no place to send him back to and he did not
commit the crimes that there was an agreement that he committed in the
United States.
This is a good amendment. It improves this bill. But the underlying
bill was designed to deal with the concern that we could not find an
adequate way to deal with until the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler) worked hard to come up with this amendment.
I urge support for this amendment. We are debating these and voting
on them one at a time. I urge that this amendment be adopted.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to tell the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) of the Committee on the Judiciary that
this breaks our deadlock, but it simply does not go far enough; and I
am hoping that he will carefully consider the arguments being made by
his colleagues, particularly on the Committee on the Judiciary, to see
why it is that we think that even the Hostettler amendment can be
approved.
I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. the Hostettler
Amendment allows for some of the broadest and most damaging immigration
changes we will have passed in several decades, and will decimate legal
protections in our laws of expedited removal, asylum, and extraordinary
rendition and torture.
Expedited removal (Section 3006)--The Hostettler Amendment would
amend the immigration laws to permit summary deportations for persons
who cannot prove that have physically been in the U.S. for more than 5
years. While the amendment deletes the provision that would have
applied this summary deportation provision to asylee applicants, it
still suffers from several glaring loopholes that would result in
deserving immigrants facing the legal nightmare of summary deportation.
Groups who would lose legal protections under the Hostettler Amendment
include:
Trafficking victims, and victims of rape, incest, kidnaping, and
domestic violence. Currently, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
allows these victims to remain in the U.S. so they are not subject to
further violence and abuse. Under the Hostettler amendment, trafficking
victims and other victims of rape, incest and kidnaping would be
subject to mandatory deportation.
Batterred women and children. The Violence Against Women Act provides
that battered immigrant women and children are permitted to remain
here, so they are not forced to face further battering and violence.
Under the Hostettler amendment, these immigrants could be plucked off
the street and subject to mandatory deportation.
Cubans who arrive in the U.S. by sea or by land. Currently, the
Attorney General has only discretionary power to exempt Cubans who
arrive in the U.S. via land or sea from expedited removal. Under the
Hostettler amendment, this discretionary power would again be obviated
by the mandatory requirement of expedited removal. This would mean that
Cubans who arrive at our shores would face automatic summary
deportation
Asylum (Section 3007)--Under the Hostettler amendment, the rights of
all asylum candidates would be impaired, decimating our historic
commitment to refugees and persecuted immigrants. Among other things,
the Hostettler Amendment would:
Require an asylum applicant to prove that a central reason for his or
her being persecuted was race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion; a far more difficult
evidentiary burden than current law.
Permit adjudicators to deny asylum because the applicant is unable to
provide specific corroborating specific, and deny judicial review of
such denials.
Introduce brand new credibility grounds for denying asylum, such as
``demeanor,'' any inconsistency in statements (even if attributable to
fear of retribution), and other subjective grounds that introduce new
cultural barriers to asylum, particularly for traumatized victims of
torture and violence.
Exclude country conditions from human rights organizations,
journalists, and other relevant, reliable and more recent information
than may be obtained from State Department reports.
Extraordinary Rendition/Torture (Section 3032)--The Hostettler
Amendment would also allow immigrants to be returned to countries where
they could be tortured in violation of the Convention Against Torture.
This is because the amended provision would allow our government to
send an individual to a country with a history of human rights
violations even if a U.S. immigration judge has determined he or she
would face torture, as long as the Secretary of State had merely asked
the country if they would agree not to torture the immigrant. In
essence, we would be substituting the judgment of a foreign diplomat
from Syria, China or the Sudan, for that of a judge in the U.S., with
the immigrant facing excruciating torture if the judge was right.
Another problem with the Hostettler Amendment is that it would create
unreviewable authority on the part of the DHS to detain non-citizens
who are found to be at risk of torture or persecution in their home
countries.
The Hostettler amendment is opposed by a wide range of human rights,
civil liberties and immigration groups, including the ACLU, the
American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International, the
Center for Victims of Torture, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human
Rights Watch, the US Committee for Refugees, the National Council of La
Raza and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. I urge No vote.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In response to the last speaker, he demonstrated why it is a
smokescreen. The issue of criminal aliens is a serious issue which we
should have to deal with; so they insert that into the Hostettler
amendment. But what they do is leave a gaping loophole whereby a
country that utilizes torture gives assurances to the United States and
therefore gets back the person whom they are going to torture.
[[Page H8889]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in strong opposition to the Hostettler amendment. The
Hostettler amendment amends the ill-considered and counterproductive
torture provisions in H.R. 10 in a way that still allows foreigners to
be subjected to torture.
How does it do this? The Hostettler amendment gives the Secretary of
Homeland Security the power to detain certain foreigners that, ``in the
Secretary's unreviewable discretion,'' the Secretary has determined to
be a specially dangerous alien that should be detained until removed.
Such persons would be held behind bars indefinitely with no recourse to
a court or another independent fact finder empowered to review the
basis for the Secretary's decision. Any foreign person that the
Secretary of Homeland Security decides is ``especially dangerous'' can
just be locked up forever with no trial or just deported.
And the Hostettler amendment stipulates that the ``Secretary of State
shall seek diplomatic assurances that such alien shall be protected if
removed from the United States.'' That means that the State Department
is supposed to seek diplomatic assurances from a country that it will
not torture somebody after a U.S. judge already has found that this
country likely would, in fact, torture that person. Are we really going
to trust the assurances of the countries that our own State Department
says torture detainees?
Mr. Chairman, we should really call this the ``In Syria we trust''
amendment or perhaps the ``In Sudan we trust'' amendment. The
assurances that these countries have provided that they would not
torture have proved completely unreliable in practice.
In 2002, Maher Arar, a Syrian-born citizen, was intercepted at New
York's JFK Airport and deported to Syria, where he was detained and
reportedly tortured. The Washington Post has reported that while Syria
provided ``diplomatic assurances'' that Arar would not be mistreated,
these assurances proved worthless. Maher Arar was tortured anyway.
America should not be outsourcing torture to countries like Syria and
the Sudan. America should be relying not on diplomatic assurances from
countries that we already know practice torture, particularly when a
U.S. judge has already found that it is more likely than not that the
deported person would be tortured if they were sent there.
We as America cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. If we want
to protect our own Marines and soldiers from torture, we must have the
same standard for protecting prisoners that we have under our control
from torture. We cannot build a new generation of nuclear bunker
busters and then tell the Muslim nations they should not want nuclear
weapons, and we cannot tell the Muslim world not to torture American
prisoners at the same time we are sending Muslim detainees to countries
that we know are going to torture those prisoners.
We cannot exist in a world where the United States is not the moral
leader. This amendment must be defeated.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), distinguished chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler
amendment, which I believe deals with the issue of compliance with the
torture amendment in a humane manner that will safeguard the safety of
the American people.
Let me say why this is necessary. Under current law, as interpreted
by the courts, a criminal who has committed a crime or conspired to
commit a crime in another country, or someone who is on a terrorist
watch list can come to the United States. When they get here, they
claim asylum. It takes a while to adjudicate asylum applications.
They also can say if he is immediately deported, then he would be
tortured if he went back home. So the way it stands now under the
current law, that person would be out in society free to commit crimes,
free to commit terrorist acts until the time comes for the asylum
hearing. And then if the person were found not to be eligible for
asylum, they still could not be deported if they thought that they
would be tortured when they come back home.
So if we cannot send them home under the torture convention, and that
is the case in many Middle Eastern countries, and we cannot detain
them, then they are out on the street posing a danger to society.
What the Hostettler amendment does in this circumstance is say that
they can be detained. And there are procedural safeguards in the
Hostettler amendment that set up standards for detention and require a
review every 6 months. If my colleagues vote against this amendment,
they are going to have these people out on the street.
They should not be out on the street. They should be detained or
deported. If we cannot deport them, then let us give the Department of
Homeland Security the authority to detain them. Pass the amendment.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims Subcommittee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and for his leadership. I thank the chairman of
the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for their
comments.
I agree with the chairman of the full committee. Keep them, detain
them here. The problem with this amendment is that it is subjected to
persons who are not terrorists. It is subjected to persons who can
cause harm but are not terrorists. This is the problem.
The White House has already said that the President of the United
States opposes provisions dealing with sending people to places where
torture occurs. The President made it clear that the United States
stands against and will not tolerate torture and that the United States
remains committed to comply with its obligations under the convention
against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana amendment does
not solve the problem. It requires, or asks, the Secretary of State to
simply ask a country not to torture the individual. Do my colleagues
believe that Sudan would comply with that? That is not the case. This
amendment is subjected to mistake.
Let me just read Cat Stevens: ``I am a victim.'' Although the
circumstances are different, he was yanked off a Washington-bound plane
and sent home. The singer, formerly known as Cat Stevens, says he
became the victim of an ``unjust and arbitrary system.'' This is what
we are passing now.
``I was devastated,'' he wrote. ``The unbelievable thing is that only
2 months earlier, I had been having meetings in Washington with top
officials from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives to talk about my charity work.''
The real key in this amendment is that we should deal with this
question in another separate opportunity to really address this in a
fair manner. This amendment will be a wide, wide, wide net, and what
will happen with this net? Innocent persons will be forced to places
where they will be tortured.
The President is standing up against it. We stand up against it. I
will simply argue that this is not the appropriate vehicle to use. This
goes against the convention against torture, and I ask my colleagues to
consider a high moral ground in this and to vote against the amendment.
We must also support the two Smith of New Jersey amendments to
eliminate the very bad H.R. 10 provisions subjecting deported persons
to possible torture against the convention against torture.
This amendment would make minor changes to the expedited removal
provisions in section 3006, but we need more than minor changes. We
need to eliminate expedited removal proceedings entirely. Expedited
removal proceedings are conducted by immigration officers who are not
even attorneys. There is no hearing before an immigration judge, no
right to counsel, and no appeal. Nevertheless, despite this complete
absence of due process, someone removed from the United States in
expedited removal proceedings is barred for 5 years from returning.
The amendment also would modify section 3032 to specify that people
who have received
[[Page H8890]]
CAT relief or withholding of removal may be detained indefinitely if
they are dangerous. The authority to detain dangerous aliens
indefinitely already exists.
In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the United States Supreme
Court held that the detention provisions in the Immigration and
Nationality Act, read in light of the Constitution's demands, limit an
alien's post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary
to bring about that alien's removal from the United States. The Supreme
Court found further that once removal is no longer reasonably
foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute--
except where special circumstances justify continued detention, such as
when it is necessary to protect the public.
In response to that Supreme Court decision, the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service promulgated regulations for determining the
circumstances under which an alien may be held in custody beyond the
statutory removal period. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 241.4. These regulations
authorize the Government to continue to detain aliens who present
foreign policy concerns or national security and terrorism concerns, as
well as individuals who are especially dangerous due to a mental
condition or personality disorder, even though their removal is not
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.
If we are going to establish a statutory criterion for deciding when
indefinite detention is warranted, we need to have a hearing first. An
unwise or inadequate criterion will result in people being detained
indefinitely who should be released from custody. We need to proceed
with caution on this matter.
I urge you to vote against this amendment.
{time} 1115
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). There is 1 minute remaining on
each side. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), as a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary and in opposition, has the right to
close.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at this time state that
the administration, as a result of the amendment to section 3032, has
said that they favor the change in my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is
important that we realize that this amendment, while not perfect, it is
extremely important that it pass. I am very supportive of the Smith
amendments that will be debated shortly. But what this amendment does
is it keeps us, the United States of America, in compliance with the
convention against torture, allowing us, obviously, not to, in order to
be in compliance with the convention against torture, not to deport
people to places where they will be tortured. But it also gives
discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain, to keep
under detention, terrorists, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and a
limited list of other serious criminals.
To comply with the convention against torture, it is important that
we pass this amendment.
I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his hard
work.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I am going to vote against the Hostettler amendment because, number
one, it is a smokescreen by pretending to fix 3006 and 3007, the
amendments that will follow this amendment when we come back to the
Committee of the Whole; and, secondly, because it has a glaring
loophole involving assurances from the torturing country that they will
not torture. That means it is still in violation of the Convention
Against Torture. Members will decide how they are going to vote on that
particular amendment.
The point I want to make most of all is do not fall for the trap
which is being set by this amendment that the Smith amendments to 3006
and 3037, that have nothing to do with terrorism and that allow for
mass deportations with no due process and which fundamentally change
our asylum laws, do not fall for the trap that by pasting the
Hostettler amendment you have cured the defects in those provisions. Be
sure to vote for the Smith amendments and against those provisions when
they come up.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 4
offered by Mr. Kirk of Illinois, Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr.
Sessions of Texas, Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Carter of Texas,
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, Amendment No. 12
offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kirk
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414,
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
AYES--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
[[Page H8891]]
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Boehlert
Clay
Conyers
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members
are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1142
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was
unavoidable detained at a doctor's appointment. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 512, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Sessions
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 385,
noes 30, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
AYES--385
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--30
Blumenauer
Carson (IN)
Farr
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kildee
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
Mollohan
Oberstar
Olver
Payne
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Scott (VA)
Solis
Stark
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--17
Boehlert
Cox
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Ruppersberger
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1152
Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 513, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Carter
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Carter) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
[[Page H8892]]
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 344,
noes 72, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 514]
AYES--344
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--72
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Ehlers
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--16
Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Obey
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1202
Mr. RUSH, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of
California, Mr. WAXMAN and Mr. SHERMAN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 514, I was in my
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye''.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 333,
noes 84, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
AYES--333
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
[[Page H8893]]
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--84
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--15
Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1212
Mr. RUSH, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. DICKS changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 515, I was in my
congressional district on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye''.
Amendment 12 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283,
noes 132, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
AYES--283
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--132
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Boehlert
Culberson
Filner
Gephardt
Hinojosa
Johnson, E. B.
Lipinski
Majette
Matsui
Meek (FL)
Norwood
Ortiz
Paul
Slaughter
Sullivan
Tauzin
Towns
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members
are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1220
Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H8894]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 516, I was in my
congressional district on official business. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no''.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Aderholt, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 10)
to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism
prevention and prosecution, border security, and international
cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________