[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23514]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BRAD SHERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 8, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I voted against the Carter amendment and 
the Green amendment to H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation 
Act. I certainly understand why my colleagues introduced these 
amendments. Their intention was to make us safer.
  However, the amendments are not drafted well enough and their 
operation relies on particularly vague underlying statutory definitions 
and agency decisions. In addition, the purpose of each amendment can be 
achieved under present law in virtually every case.
  In particular, these amendments rely upon the definition of terrorist 
act and terrorist organization. One would have to have overwhelming 
faith, perhaps even blind faith, in current and future administrations 
to believe that these amendments will be immune from misuse.
  I have seen the State Department place or remove organizations on the 
terrorist list, influenced, at least in substantial part, by 
diplomatic, political, and even trade considerations.
  The Carter amendment essentially attempts to create a felony murder 
rule for terrorist offenses. If a defendant is part of a conspiracy to 
commit a felony, and someone dies in commission of that felony, the 
harshest penalties are applied, even if the conspiracy did not envision 
anybody dying. I support felony murder rules, particularly those 
applied to violent terrorist conspiracies. Unfortunately, this 
amendment, in the hands of unwise or politically motivated prosecutors, 
could be used to seek the death penalty for those involved in a Sierra 
Club protest at federal facilities, if there was some tragic and 
perhaps unforeseeable action.
  I am confident that the Judiciary Committee will work on these 
matters in the weeks and months ahead and design legislation to bring 
us the safety-enhancing objectives of the foregoing amendments, without 
raising the same concerns.