[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8363-H8365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FTO PASSPORT REVOCATION ACT OF 2017
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 425) to authorize the revocation or denial of passports
to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 425
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``FTO Passport Revocation Act
of 2017''.
SEC. 2. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO INDIVIDUALS
AFFILIATED WITH FOREIGN TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS.
The Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the issue and
validity of passports, and for other purposes'', approved
July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the
``Passport Act of 1926'', is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.
``(a) Ineligibility.--
``(1) Issuance.--Except as provided under subsection (b),
the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any
individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided,
assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the
Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization
pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
``(2) Revocation.--The Secretary of State may revoke a
passport previously issued to any individual described in
paragraph (1).
``(b) Right of Review.--Any individual who, in accordance
with this section, is denied issuance of a passport by the
Secretary of State, or whose passport is revoked by the
Secretary, may request a hearing before the Secretary not
later than 60 days after receiving notice of such denial or
revocation.
``(c) Report.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary of State refuses to
issue or revokes a passport pursuant to subsection (a), or
if, subsequent to a hearing pursuant to subsection (b), the
Secretary issues or cancels a revocation of a passport that
was the subject of such a hearing, the Secretary shall, not
later than 30 days after such refusal or revocation, or such
issuance or cancellation, submit to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on such refusal,
revocation, issuance, or cancellation, as the case may be.
``(2) Form.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) may
be submitted in classified or unclassified form.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `passport'
includes a passport card.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attack last night in New York City comes
as a devastating reminder that the enemies of liberty will not cease.
Eight people were killed and 11 more were injured in what law
enforcement officials are now calling New York's deadliest terror
attack since 9/11.
The perpetrator of this attack was radicalized domestically by ISIS,
highlighting the grave threat posed by this terrorist propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist last night was an immigrant from
Uzbekistan, but we know that even within our midst, there are Americans
who sympathize with those who seek to destroy our freedom.
{time} 1830
As many as 250 American citizens have sought to travel to Syria, and
more than 100 have joined ISIS' ranks. Many of these individuals have
received terrorist training while overseas. Some are under the command
and control of terrorist leaders who have instructed them to attack the
United States whenever. Others are inspired by the perverted ideology
of hate that the terrorists post on social media sites. Many of these
are American social media sites.
These American citizens are a direct threat to our homeland.
Unfortunately, our current safeguards are insufficient to protect us
against such vulnerability.
In 2014, a 22-year-old Florida native became the first American to
carry out a suicide bombing in Syria. He had battled hard and been
trained by al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate for some time. This same
American was waved through U.S. border inspections when he traveled
home to Florida a year earlier.
After spending some time in Florida, the man made his way back to
Syria to kill in the name of al-Qaida. When he ultimately blew himself
up in May of 2014, al-Qaida released a video of his last will and
testament. He said: ``You think you are safe where you are in America.
You are not safe.''
Mr. Speaker, today we are at a dangerous crossroad. As ISIS loses
more territory in its so-called caliphate and it collapses, the threat
to our homeland will really grow. Americans who have been fighting with
ISIS will be looking for ways to come home to stage deadly attacks.
In recent weeks, a man from Alexandria, Virginia, was convicted on
terrorism charges for joining ISIS. He was sentenced to 20 years in the
penitentiary. This terrorist traitor to our Nation named four other
Westerners who had joined ISIS and who left Syria with intentions to do
harm in their home countries.
Law enforcement officials and terrorism experts have been warning of
this foreign fighter threat for years. This is a serious threat, and we
must address it before it becomes worse.
Having betrayed our Nation, we must revoke the privileges that come
with an American passport. That is why my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), and I introduced H.R. 425, the Foreign
Terrorist Organization Passport Revocation Act. It authorizes the
Secretary of State to revoke passports of those who have joined foreign
terrorist organizations.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, this is a legal term, what a foreign
terrorist organization is. It is only those organizations.
These individuals are U.S. citizens, but they betray our country.
They should clearly not be allowed the privilege of international
travel with an American passport, and they should definitely not be
able to come back into the United States when they travel overseas,
such as in Syria. This bipartisan bill will also stop these Benedict
Arnolds from using their passports to travel to other war zones or
cross borders to attack any of our allies.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in current regulations
specifically to support foreign terrorist organizations. The Secretary
of State does not have the authority to revoke passports on a broad
national security basis.
It is time our laws change and catch up with the modern world and the
new and real threats to our Nation. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. This
bill would not strip American of their citizenship. It would deny those
Americans who have sided with foreign terrorist organizations the
privilege of travel internationally.
The bill also would not impinge on any American's due process rights
if they want to appeal the revocation of their passport. Anyone whose
passport is revoked or denied is eligible for a due process hearing
within 60 days. The bill would actually increase oversight on this
process by requiring the State Department to report directly to
Congress whenever the Secretary moves to revoke or deny an American's
passport on these grounds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr.
Keating) for working with me on this bill. We both sit on the Committee
on Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
Trade as the chair and ranking member. We have both been working on
this issue of foreign fighter threats for some time, and we believe
this is a good first step to protect our homeland.
I also want to thank Chairman Royce for his help in getting this
important bill passed in the committee, and also Ranking Member Engel
from New York, where this unfortunate tragic event occurred last night.
Mr. Speaker, the point is this: the traitors among us who have chosen
to
[[Page H8364]]
make their allegiance to a murderous ideology instead of the country
that gave them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must face
the consequences. If you take up arms with our enemies, you deserve to
be treated like one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in strong support of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, as a New Yorker, my heart aches today. The appalling
loss of life on the streets of Manhattan yesterday is a reminder that
terrorism remains a threat that demands our focus.
Confronting violent extremism requires sound, reasoned policies;
policies proportional to the threat, policies based on good
intelligence, careful analysis, and a clear understanding of what we
are up against, not policies based on hysterical reactions or biases
against certain faiths or nationalities.
I support this bill because it will ensure that the State Department
has the tools to prevent American terrorists from traveling abroad or
returning to our country.
Under this legislation, the Secretary of State could refuse to issue
a passport or revoke a passport for any American who has provided
assistance to foreign terrorist organizations. Importantly, it also
affords anyone affected the right to an appeals process, helping to
ensure due process rights.
This bill is just common sense. It is also a vital aspect of the
fight against terrorism. We don't want known threats crossing our
borders or slipping from country to country anywhere in the world.
The bill we are considering today would not have, obviously,
prevented yesterday's attack, but this is important. This is just a
piece of a larger strategy.
The President yesterday called our judicial system, which would
prosecute the perpetrator of yesterday's attack, a joke and a laughing
stock. I beg to disagree. That is our judicial system, which
successfully prosecuted shoe bomber Richard Reid; Ramzi Yousef, the
1993 World Trade Center bomber; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square
bomber; and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama Bin Laden's son-in-law, in March
of 2014.
Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch has done quite a good job in
prosecuting terrorists. Let's show them a little confidence and give
credit where credit is due.
This is deadly serious. The man suspected in yesterday's attack was
reportedly radicalized after he arrived in the United States. We have
seen this before in San Bernardino and Orlando. ISIS inspires its
adherents from thousands of miles away. That is a problem. And just as
this bill gets at a narrow, specific potential vulnerability, policies
to deal with homegrown extremists and terrorists should take a hard
look at causes and take appropriate action to prevent this sort of
radicalization on American shores.
We won't solve this problem by slamming shut America's front door and
clamping down on immigration. In fact, doing so just contributes to the
terrorist's ideological ammunition and recruitment efforts. There are
proven ways to combat terrorism, but demonizing a religion or chipping
away at constitutional rights won't work. Those approaches play right
into the tactics terrorists use to radicalize vulnerable Americans,
making us less safe and less free.
I want to thank Representatives Poe and Keating, who lead our
Committee on Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill gets to
the real concern in the fight against terrorism. I am pleased to
support it.
With all due respect to Mr. Poe, that is just the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Keating), the ranking member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation,
and Trade Subcommittee.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 425, the Foreign
Terrorist Organization Passport Revocation Act.
Mr. Speaker, I can't speak to the subject of terrorism without
condemning the senseless and heinous attack that took place yesterday
in New York City. My prayers are with all the individuals and families
that were affected. My utmost respect goes to the New York City
community that, once again, stands strong, stands together,
unintimidated.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this important piece of legislation, H.R.
425, together with Chairman Poe of the Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade.
As we have discussed, this legislation works to strengthen the tools
we have at our disposal for combating terrorism. Put simply, the
Secretary of State can refuse to issue or revoke the passport to any
individual the Secretary determines is affiliated with or has aided,
assisted, or abetted a designated foreign terrorist organization.
The terrorist treats that we face today are complex. Our Federal,
State, and local agencies are fighting terrorism at a time when ISIS
and other terrorist organizations are able to use new technologies and
means of communication to connect with individuals around the globe to
fund, to direct, and inspire acts of terror.
Modes of international travel are more accessible and affordable than
ever, and cross-border flows of people and goods have increased as we
have become more connected in the global world. While these are very
positive developments for exchange, competitiveness, and quality of
life, we also have to be sure we are managing the risks that go along
with this increased connectivity.
We have to make it harder for anyone supporting terrorism to benefit
from the increased ease of global movement. That is why our legislation
is important. We must ensure that the Secretary of State has the clear
authority to refuse a passport to anyone affiliated with or supporting
a designated foreign terrorist organization.
This legislation provides that specific statutory authority, as well
as improved congressional oversight, are in place. It is also important
that there are safeguards in place in order for any law to be
successful. That is why I am pleased that H.R. 425 also includes a
right of review for anyone whose passport has been refused or revoked.
It is absolutely possible to fight terrorism while still upholding
protections for individuals' rights and the rule of law, and it is
critical that we do both. In fighting to protect our communities and
our democracy, we cannot compromise these very things we are fighting
to protect.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Poe for joining me in
introducing H.R. 425, the Foreign Terrorist Organization Passport
Revocation Act. I would like to also thank Chairman Royce and Ranking
Member Engel for their support with this bill as well within the
Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge that all of our colleagues join
together in support of this important legislation.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Chairman Royce from California,
as well as Representatives Poe and Keating for their remarks.
This is a good bill. It is a commonsense bill. It is a good example
of how we need to legislate when it comes to terrorism. We are acting
out of innovation, out of careful analysis, not out of fear.
We all feel the sting today of an attack on American soil yesterday.
As lawmakers, one of our most important jobs is to help keep Americans
safe, and there is no worse heartbreak than when we see innocent lives
lost.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are moving this bipartisan measure today. I
am pleased to support it. I urge all Members to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1845
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to emphasize again our prayers for the folks in New York City
and for the appreciation of our first responders, who are always there,
as you personally know, Mr. Speaker. And the New York tragedy is an
example of how they respond and chase and go after terrorists rather
than run from terror.
One other thing I want to mention is the Foreign Affairs Committee,
we work primarily bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. That shocks a lot of folks
here in Washington, D.C., and it sure shocks a lot of folks back home.
But most of the
[[Page H8365]]
things that come before the House floor have been bipartisan pieces of
legislation.
We spend a lot of time on legislation and almost always come to the
House floor with unanimous votes, or mostly unanimous votes, on the
committee level. We work very well on these issues because these are
not partisan issues; these are American issues that we are talking
about.
Mr. Speaker, there are about 61 designated foreign terrorist
organizations that our State Department has said are foreign terrorist
organizations and, to prevent individuals in America who side with
these organizations, who support these organizations, who are part of
these organizations from traveling around the world and coming back
home, based upon their activities, this legislation by Mr. Keating is
introduced. Keep them from traveling, because we know who those people
are, and keep them, especially, from coming back to the United States.
So what would happen if a passport is revoked and some American is in
Syria and is radicalized and he tries to get on a plane? Well, he is
not allowed to get on the plane. He is stopped, and then he is turned
over, eventually, to Department of Homeland Security and our Justice
Department and handled that way.
Now, there are only a few places under our law where a person's
passport can be revoked. Not paying your child support, drug
trafficking, sex tourism--those are three of the examples. So we are
not talking about a lot of examples, but we are talking about this
example.
I am a former judge, and I know Mr. Keating is a former prosecutor.
Due process for Americans is always important. The Supreme Court has
already ruled on whether or not passports can be revoked under certain
circumstances, and they have affirmed the authority of the State
Department to revoke passports in specific cases based upon national
security reasons.
This bill allows for due process of those people who have their
passports revoked. This is a good step in protecting the United States.
This is bipartisan legislation. I think it is very important that we
take this step.
Once again, my prayers, our prayers, are for those folks in New York.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to allow terrorists to have their
day. We are not going to allow them to have their way.
And that is just the way it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 425--
the FTO Passport Revocation Act of 2017--by my friend and colleague
Chairman Ted Poe. I cannot help but see this measure as a common sense
tactic to prevent terrorists from entering or re-entering our country.
However, more needs to be done to build on this useful foundation for
security from terrorists originating in this country or foreign-based
terrorists.
Just yesterday, the streets of New York were the scene of carnage
caused by a man from Uzbekistan who won a diversity visa lottery to
enter this country in 2010. He has lived here for seven years before
going on the murderous rampage that killed 8 people and injured 12
others. Clearly, we need to look closer at the background of those
admitted through this lottery as they could eventually obtain a U.S.
passport. That was the conclusion by the Government Accountability
Office ten years ago--three years before New York terror suspect
arrived in this country.
The GAO report in 2007 called the diversity visa program ``an open
door'' for terrorists. According to the report 9,800 people from
countries designated by the State Department as State Sponsors of
Terrorism had used the program to enter the country. These people could
eventually qualify for a U.S. passport.
We also must be more vigilant about people coming from countries not
designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism. The 9/11 Commission reported
back in 2004 that as many as six of the hijackers of the three planes--
who were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon--
had used fraudulent or manipulated passports to enter the United
States. In 2013, a Saudi citizen entering the United States through the
Detroit airport was detained because he couldn't satisfactorily explain
why he was carrying a pressure cooker like the one used in the Boston
marathon bombing. However, upon inspection, his passport suspiciously
had a missing page. Would that have been caught without the presence of
the pressure cooker? We are told that even the slightest tweak to a
passport will be caught, but one failure could result in a terrorist
entering our country, and they could eventually become terrorist
sleepers who acquire a U.S. passport.
Finally, in order for the FTO designation to be effectively used to
stop terrorists from getting passports or having their passport
revoked, our government must make that designation in the first place.
I tried for two years to get the previous administration to designate
Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. They finally did so in 2013,
but how many potential terrorists may have gotten through before then
and acquire sufficient status to receive a U.S. passport? We also need
to use the FTO designation to identify those giving support to
terrorist organizations, especially in cases of such support coming
from those living in the United States who could be or potentially
could be U.S. passport holders.
As I said earlier, I consider H.R. 425 a common sense measure on
which to build, but we must take steps to make this bill as meaningful
as it must be for our security. I ask my colleagues to approve this
legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Higgins of Louisiana). The question is
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 425, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________