[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22105-22126]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 22106]]

     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 
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.

[[Page 22107]]

  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 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

[[Page 22108]]

       (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):

     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. 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

[[Page 22109]]

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 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

[[Page 22110]]

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 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,

[[Page 22111]]

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. 
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.''.

[[Page 22112]]

       (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. 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

[[Page 22113]]

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. 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 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.

[[Page 22114]]

 
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 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.

[[Page 22115]]

  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 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

[[Page 22116]]

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;
       ``(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. 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

[[Page 22117]]

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.
  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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 22118]]

  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 
     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

[[Page 22119]]

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.
  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

[[Page 22120]]

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. 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.
  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?

[[Page 22121]]

  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 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

[[Page 22122]]

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
     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)

[[Page 22123]]


     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.


                             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)

[[Page 22124]]


     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
     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

[[Page 22125]]


     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 22126]]

  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.

                          ____________________