Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004

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.

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. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), ranking member of the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendments.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply create a rebuttable presumption that no amount of bail or other conditions would assure the appearance in court of a defendant when he is charged with a terrorist offense and there is probable cause that the defendant committed certain terrorist acts. This bill simply creates a rebuttable presumption which can be overcome by evidence that the defendant would appear in court.

This presumption that a defendant would not show up in court already applies to those who are charged with major drug crimes and certain violent crimes. If it is good enough for drug dealers and violent criminals, it should be good enough for terrorists. It is simply too risky to trust terrorists who have been charged with terrorist offenses to return to court to be tried. We should not allow these criminals to roam free in our streets while they await trial.

In addition, this bill would help prevent further terrorist attacks by giving judges the discretion to impose a term of supervised relief up to life for terrorists who have been convicted of terrorist offenses. Currently, the law provides that only those who committed terrorist offenses which either resulted in or created a foreseeable risk of death could be supervised for a term of years up to life after being released. This bill would make clear that post-trial supervision is available for all victim terrorists, not just those whose terrorist acts happen to result in death.

This amendment only authorizes a court to impose the supervised relief of a terrorist. It does not mandate any particular term of supervised relief for any particular criminal, nor does it mandate that any supervised release be imposed at all. It leaves that decision up to the courts based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

In addition, current law already gives courts the authority to modify or end the period of supervised release if the court determines that the criminal's conduct and circumstances so warrant. This safeguard is not changed by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes simple changes to current Federal criminal law to ensure that those who have committed terrorist acts will not attempt to harm our citizens again. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her comments, but I would also point out that we are engaged in the midst of a war against terror right now and a lot is going to happen in the next year, including the apprehension of people who, under appropriate circumstances meet this standard, and we should have the opportunity for the court, and this is a decision by the judge, not something that is a mandatory decision, but the judge should have the discretion to allow that the individual be held pending trial without bond.

Secondly, there will be people who have been convicted of terrorist acts potentially released during that period of time, and if the court finds it appropriate to authorize lifetime supervision, we ought to get that supervision started now to keep track of people who have engaged in terrorist acts and give the court the authority to undertake that now, without waiting an additional year and expose our country to greater risks that will occur during that time.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition and will be in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to say it has been a privilege to work with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on a completely nonpartisan basis for almost half a decade on this particular legislation.

The Foley-Ackerman amendment closes the loophole that currently allows war criminals who enter the United States to remain in the United States. This measure enjoys bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. A bill sponsored by the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee in that body.

At this very moment, with our Nation engaged in a conflict in Iraq, which previously had a regime that committed every kind of grotesque criminal behavior that our Nation deplores, the U.S. Code provides no, again, no, assurance that Saddam Hussein's henchmen, Iraqi war criminals, perpetrators of torture or atrocities from there or other places could not somehow come into the United States and enjoy the very benefits that they have so cruelly deprived of others.

It is hard to believe but it is true. Some of Saddam Hussein's most brutal thugs, if they were able to hide their past and slip past the INS, they could conceivably apply and receive either U.S. permanent resident status or even possibly citizenship.

How do we know this? Because war criminals from other conflicts have been surreptitiously coming to the United States since World War II. We cannot continue to leave the United States open to monsters who have committed horrible atrocities against innocent civilians, and we need to slam that door shut and to shut it tightly. We must also capture those war criminals who have already entered the United States and show them the door.

The Foley-Ackerman amendment provides the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation, the OSI, with the statutory authority to hunt down these thugs and criminals and, through the courts, remove them from our country.

The OSI is currently tasked with finding and expelling Nazi war criminals seeking to evade the consequences of their unprecedented and horrific crimes. Since its creation in 1979, this elite team of prosecutors and investigators has been methodically removing Nazi war criminals who were able to sneak into the United States. Based on its terrific past performance, its current readiness, and most critically, its desire to perform the mission, OSI is the right agency to ensure that this land remain free from the most vile criminals and violators of human rights.

Mr. Chairman, the very notion that anyone who has perpetuated genocide or committed these horrible crimes, these acts of torture, would be able to get into the United States is shocking enough. The fact that there is currently no law on the books to find these criminals and to remove them from our country is even worse. War criminals should have no safe haven or refuge anywhere, least of all in this land of liberty, and that is why I am encouraging all of our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote in support of the Foley-Ackerman amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield our time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

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. Chairman, I agree with Chairman Barton that the digital television transition has taken too long and that we need to quickly get our police officers, firefighters, and other first responders an additional 24 megahertz of spectrum to help them safely do their jobs. This spectrum, currently occupied by television channels 63, 64, 68, and 69, is set to be turned over to first responders once the stations broadcasting on those channels transition to digital. Can the federal government speed this up?

Some have proposed getting first responders this spectrum more quickly by requiring certain broadcasters to return their spectrum by the end of 2006. This suggestion, though well intentioned, is a simplistic approach to a complex problem. It does not ensure that the public safety sector will be ready to use this new spectrum. Also, this suggestion, by supplanting certain broadcasters directly, and shutting down others to prevent interference, will prevent many consumers from receiving important programming such as local news and weather. Finally, it will also disproportionately harm the Hispanic community by shutting down a number of Spanish-language stations.

Likewise, the amendment before us today does not reflect the complexity of this issue. Although I agree with Chairman Barton that we need to speed up the digital transition, the amendment declares that we should establish a hard deadline of December 31, 2006, when all analog television broadcasts on all channels would cease. Such an absolute declaration is premature. It would not allow enough time for affordable equipment to come to market or to properly educate consumers about the transition. Moreover, it could result in many consumers losing their television service. That must not happen.

Congress needs to address the digital transition issue soon in a comprehensive way, addressing, among others, three major issues. First, we need to expedite public safety's access to new spectrum and provide them with certainty so they know when they will be receiving new spectrum. Certainty will allow first responders time to plan how to use the spectrum. It will also allow them time to line up the funding necessary to make use of the spectrum once it becomes available.

Second, we need to implement a far-reaching plan to educate consumers on what will happen once the digital transition is complete. It is important that consumers know when the transition will take place, how it will take place, and what it means for them with regard to their television viewing.

Third, consumers should not bear unfair cost burdens, and we need to have a program in place to provide subsidies so that no one is left behind as the United States transitions to digital television.

I am pleased that Chairman Barton recognizes the need to tackle these issues in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment before us today because it is premature and could lead to consumers losing their television service.

I am confident, however, that regardless of which party controls the House next Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will work on a bipartisan basis to properly address these issues in a way that will speed up the digital transition, provide certainty to public safety regarding new spectrum, and protect consumers from losing their television service.