[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 36 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2555-S2557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AMENDMENT NO. 309

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my remarks are in regard to amendment 
No. 309, which is my amendment, but it was offered, as a lot of other 
amendments on this side of the aisle were, by Senator McConnell, and so 
I am going to speak now on amendment No. 309.
  This amendment seeks to shut down terrorists and criminal 
organizations by attacking their most valuable resource, and that is 
their money. Terrorists and criminal organizations take many different 
forms, but there is one factor that they all have in common, and that 
is the need to obtain, transit, and store money to do their dirty work.
  In the past few years, we have made some significant advancements in 
identifying how these groups obtain and attempt to legitimize their 
illicit funds. Yet as we close one door, these criminals seek to open 
another to move their money around and to continue their dirty work. In 
fact, they continue to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies 
in our current law. We must continue to be vigilant in closing these 
loopholes, and we must not underestimate their capabilities or resolve.
  As we consider amendment No. 309, I think we have to consider that 
this will not necessarily be the last word. These terrorists are so 
sophisticated in their operation that they may find some way to get 
around what we are doing now. As long as we are constantly vigilant, as 
long as we are constantly throwing roadblocks in the way of 
legitimizing their money and transiting their money, we will curtail 
their dirty work to some extent. Any

[[Page S2556]]

efforts that we make to improve America's security must then, without 
question, address how terrorists and criminals are funding and 
financing their operations.
  One of the main recommendations that have come from the 9/11 
Commission Report was that, and I quote:

       Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain 
     front and center in the U.S. counterterrorism effort.

  These groups know well that we are looking hard to determine sources 
of funding that they use. They also know that we must continually 
develop new tactics to avoid detection, prosecution, and ultimately to 
protect those sources of funding. This has become, as we say in the 
Midwest, a kind of cat and mouse game. Like the larger war on terror, 
we cannot afford to lose this cat and mouse enterprise.
  My amendment will close existing loopholes. My amendment will remove 
the inconsistencies that allow terrorists and criminals to hide illegal 
funds within legal institutions and then move those funds for profit or 
to fund their activities or, you might say, for both.
  Our law enforcement agencies and our prosecutors must have the 
resources they need to bring these criminals to justice and to shut 
down their operations and, hopefully, shut them down permanently. For 
example, my amendment simplifies the continual growing list of over 200 
predicate crimes dedicated for Federal prosecutors to bring a money 
laundering charge.
  My amendment will allow U.S. attorneys to use any Federal or State 
felony as a predicate offense to bring a money laundering charge.
  My amendment will also greatly simplify how prosecutors may seek 
indictments for money laundering violations. It also closes many 
loopholes that have allowed the terrorists and criminals to move money 
into this country.
  Clever tricks, such as traveling with blank checks with bearer form 
or in bearer form and the commingling of illegal and legitimate money 
in bank accounts will no longer be available to these criminal 
organizations.
  Under my amendment cash smugglers will no longer be able to hide 
behind a claim of ignorance about the source of the money they carry.
  The amendment will also provide necessary changes to our antiquated 
counterfeiting statutes. The stability of our currency is paramount to 
not only our economy but also the economies of so many other countries 
that seem to follow the dollar. The dollar is the most recognizable 
currency in the world and an inescapable target for counterfeiters.
  For instance, U.S. currency counterfeiting operations have been 
identified in places such as Colombia, North Korea, and the Middle 
East, undoubtedly giving counterfeiting ties to drug cartels and to 
sponsors of terrorism. This crime has evolved and continues to evolve 
with the explosion of computer printing technology.
  This amendment will bring our counterfeiting statutes in line with 
these dramatic technological changes and give law enforcement agencies, 
especially the Secret Service, the resources to fight counterfeiting 
and other financial crimes on an international scale.
  Any effort we make to increase the security of this Nation must then 
strive to remove sources of funding available to the terrorists and to 
the criminals. Without financial resources, these groups will no longer 
be able to make profits or fund operations.

  Our Nation, for a long period of time, has been trying to shut off 
sources of funding. As I indicated earlier, we are up against a 
sophisticated enemy that always finds some way around our laws to 
legitimize what they do. Once again, I want to emphasize that it is a 
constant struggle to keep our laws so that the criminal element cannot 
find these loopholes and do something legally that finances their 
illegal activities.
  These criminals should not be allowed to hide behind loopholes in our 
laws, and we should give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to 
deal the ever-changing tactics of terrorists and criminals. In essence, 
our goal should be nothing less than putting these criminal 
organizations out of business, and putting them out of business for 
good.
  This amendment is critical to our homeland defense. It implements 
changes that the 9/11 Commission recommended in its report, which was a 
bipartisan commission and, consequently, a bipartisan report. We are 
dealing with something that should have support on both sides of the 
aisle.
  This amendment also has the support and backing of both the 
Department of Justice and the Secret Service. It has the support of the 
Secret Service because one of their many responsibilities--and maybe 
one of their original responsibilities--is to protect the integrity of 
American currency.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and improve 
America's security by combating terrorist financing and criminal money 
laundering.


                           Amendment No. 300

  Madam President, another amendment that was filed by our Republican 
leader, Senator McConnell, is No. 300, which I will also now discuss. 
That amendment to the underlying bill will revise current laws related 
to visa revocation for visa holders who are on U.S. soil.
  Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers are 
nonreviewable and are deemed final. However, if a visa is approved but 
later revoked, and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the 
consular officer then becomes automatically reviewable in our U.S. 
courts. My amendment would treat visa revocations similar to visa 
denials because the right of that person to be in the United States is 
no longer valid.
  It is very important that we do this for these reasons: Consider visa 
revocations related to terrorism. From September 11, 2001, until the 
summer of 2003, the State Department revoked about 1,200 visas based 
upon terrorism links. I asked Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, about the problems with our current law on visa 
revocation. I will quote what he said to me on Wednesday when he was 
before the Judiciary Committee:

       The fact is that we can prevent someone who is coming in as 
     a guest. We can say, you can't come in from overseas, but 
     once they come in, if they abuse the terms and conditions of 
     their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. 
     That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are 
     admitted as guests, like guests in my house, if the guest 
     misbehaves, I just tell them to leave. They don't get to go 
     to court over it.

  That is the end of his quote, but he makes it very clear that he 
believes somebody who should not have been here in the first place 
shouldn't have the right of protection of our courts before they are 
removed.
  Following on the Secretary's analogy, I think we can equate the role 
of homeowner to that of consular officer. Currently and historically 
all decisions by consular officers with regard to the granting of visas 
are final and not subject to review. Revocations, then, should not be 
treated any differently than that original denial, when somebody did 
not have the right to come here in the first place.

  Let me explain how we got here. Back in 2003, a Government 
Accountability Office report revealed that suspected terrorists could 
stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of 
terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of the revocation 
papers. This loophole came to light after the Government Accountability 
Office found that more than 100 persons were granted visas that were 
later revoked because there was evidence the person had terrorism links 
and associations.
  The FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism in 
over 280 visa applications. The FBI did not share the information with 
our consular offices in time, so the consular officers actually granted 
the visa so somebody with terrorism connections could come here when 
they should not have been allowed into the country. When they got the 
derogatory information from the FBI, it was too late; they had access 
to our courts.
  The consular officer had to revoke the visas. What the Government 
Accountability Office found was that even though the visas were 
revoked, immigration officials couldn't do anything about it. They were 
handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. In the 
end, it turned out OK, but it is an example of the mistakes that can be 
made. It is also an example of the loophole terrorists are smart enough 
to exploit.
  Why, then, are revoked visas such a problem? The short answer is that 
the

[[Page S2557]]

person with the revoked visa can stay in the United States--a 
terrorist, then, can stay in the United States--and can appeal the 
consular officer's decision of whether they had a right to be here in 
the first place. Thanks to a small provision inserted during the 
consideration of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004, the 
visa holder has more rights than he or she should have, considering the 
terrorist connection. If they were originally denied a visa by the 
consular officer, there would be no right to dispute it.
  I will give an example. If a consular officer grants a visa to a 
person and that person makes his or her way to the United States and 
after arriving in the United States the consular officer finds out that 
the foreign individual has ties to terrorism--maybe the consular 
officer found out that the visa holder attended a terrorist training 
camp or maybe the intelligence community just informed the consular 
officer that the visa holder was linked to the Taliban or maybe our 
Government just learned that the visa holder gave millions of dollars 
to a terrorist organization before they applied for a visa--whatever 
the case might be, the person should not have a visa, and the consular 
officer has to revoke it. This revocation should be a final 
determination--no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It should not be 
reviewable and especially should not be reviewable in the U.S. courts.
  What are the ramifications, then, of where we are today with the law 
and why change the law? Deporting an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked 
visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity 
to appeal that revocation. This exception has made the visa revocation 
ineffective as an antiterrorism tool. Allowing review of revoked visas, 
especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified 
intelligence that led to revocation. It can force agencies such as the 
FBI and the CIA to be hesitant to share information if it might get out 
within the environment of a court. Current law could be reversing our 
progress in information sharing.
  So why is this relevant, then, to the bill on the floor? The 9/11 
Commission--again, I want to emphasize it is a bipartisan commission--
found flaws in our visa policies. Specifically, the staff report said 
that the 19 hijackers used--these are the 19 people who died on those 
airplanes that killed 3,000 Americans--these 19 hijackers used 364 
aliases. Two of the hijackers may have obtained passports from family 
members working in the Saudi passport ministry. The 19 hijackers 
applied for 23 visas and obtained 22. The hijackers lied on their visa 
applications in detectable ways. The hijackers violated the terms of 
their visas, and they came and went at their very own convenience.
  The leaders of the Senate claim that the underlying bill will finish 
the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The floor 
manager on the other side of the aisle was quoted as saying:

       Every day that we don't act is another day in which we are 
     not as secure here at home as we should be.

  The 9/11 Commission pointed out the obvious by stating:

       Terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United 
     States if they are unable to enter our country.

  The 9/11 Commission explicitly recommends, on page 385, that:

       The United States should combine terrorist travel 
     intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy 
     to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel 
     facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.

  So we are back to my amendment. The amendment, amendment No. 300, 
helps to achieve this goal. Intelligence officials need to share 
information with immigration and consular officers to prevent 
terrorists from entering the United States and impede the mobility of 
terrorists throughout our country, wherever they want to do their dirty 
work.
  The Speaker of the House pointed out that:

       Implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations is 
     supported by 62 percent of Americans.

  I think a higher percentage of Americans would agree that reforms to 
our immigration and visa policies should not be ignored, especially 
given the 9/11 Commission's recommended actions on these issues that 
then would make it easier to get these people with revoked visas out of 
the country and would not put them in an environment where, if they 
were going to be pursued through the courts to get them out of the 
country, that intelligence information or FBI sources would have to be 
disclosed in the courts.
  Unfortunately, our leaders have forgotten a major recommendation of 
the 9/11 Commission. In other words, this bill is not as complete as 
the authors of this legislation want us to think it is, and this 
amendment will make it more complete. This amendment would constrain 
terrorists' travel, and it should be accepted on this bill. Allowing 
aliens to remain on U.S. soil with revoked visa or petition is a 
national security concern and is something about which the 9/11 
Commission would suggest correction is needed. We must encourage, as 
the 9/11 Commission recommended, a procedure in which our intelligence 
community can work with consular officers, who then cooperate with our 
Nation's law enforcement to keep terrorists from coming to the United 
States. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act 
counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and to run to the courts and 
to seek relief from deportation.
  Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11--and I have laid 
this out, how you can get more visas than you even need, how you have 
hundreds of aliases, the tools they use--and proved how sophisticated 
they are and proved how they could carry out their dastardly acts on 
September 11. Enough is enough. They took advantage of our system 
before 9/11. We need to do everything we can to make sure they don't 
take further advantage of our system.
  I hope my colleagues will support amendment No. 300.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Vitter as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________