Cargo Theft Prevention Act

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would just note that I am attempting to bring it up at this time and discuss it, at the same time I am looking to work with my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), so that we can move this forward.

I might also add that the amendment is now Jackson-Lee-Poe.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.

Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to be brought up be as modified.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and, as I indicated, this amendment is offered by myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for his cooperation in working to have this amendment be included in the final legislation as it is a sense of Congress amendment that I think makes a very important statement.

The proposal relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981, and would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach judgments to collect compensatory damages for which a terrorist organization has been

adjudged liable and from the pool of assets that have been forfeited under section 981.

This is distinctive, Mr. Chairman, because this pertains to circumstances of terrorism but not necessarily in circumstances when we are at war.

My amendment seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgments for damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual entity or organization that is engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism.

As we look at H.R. 3199, the PATRIOT Act, it misses the opportunity to in fact allow victims to satisfy judgments. That is the key. For example, the Sobero case, where the gentleman from Riverside, California, was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, leaving his children fatherless. The administration responded to this incident by sending a thousand Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, yet the family of this decreased could not claim any compensation for the tragedy that occurred.

The same thing occurred with the Iran hostages, which many of us are familiar with, but are my colleagues aware of the situation with our American servicemen who were harmed in the Libyan-sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany? They were obstructed from being able to enforce judgments that they received against the terrorist-sponsored attack and the attack that was sponsored by Libya.

In addition, a group of American prisoners tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government.

I do believe in conference we will have the opportunity to vet this and to work with all the parties concerned to finally bring some relief on this issue. Many Members have attempted to bring about relief in special claims for their particular individual constituents in their particular jurisdictions. Fortunately, in the opportunity we have today, by including this sense of Congress in the PATRIOT Act we will finally get both our debate and we will get action.

Mr. Chairman, I bring attention as well to the World Trade Center bombing victims who were barred from obtaining judgments against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi Government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 20, 2001, attack. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment rendered was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were unavailable for judicial attachment.

One major problem that frustrates the objective of my amendment is the fact that information is not publicly available regarding the amount and or kind of civil forfeitures made to date. So this amendment will allow the full discussion by a sense of Congress of what would be the right process to proceed, balancing the needs of the government, balancing the needs of the victims of terrorism, balancing the question of justice, and, yes, balancing the responsible actions under the PATRIOT Act, protecting us against terrorism but then, when we are victims of terrorism, to give us the opportunity for relief.

I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment so we can carry this forward into conference and be able to provide the kind of leadership necessary for the throngs of victims, those who have already suffered, and we hope not, but for those who may suffer in the future.

I would say that absent this public disclosure of this very substantial information; that is; about the assets, it is very difficult for compensation even to be requested. So I think that we will have an opportunity to address these concerns, balance the needs of the government in its need to protect certain information, and give relief to many Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order by the Committee on Rules, Jackson-Lee No. 42. This proposal relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981 and would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach judgments to collect compensory damages for which a terrorist organization has been adjudged liable and from the pool of assets that have been forfeited under Section 981.

My amendment seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgment for damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 981(G). Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual, entity, or organization that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States.

The legislation, H.R. 3199, as drafted, fails to deal with the current limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several examples of how the current Administration has sought to bar victims from satisfying judgments obtained against the government of Iran, for example.

In the Sobero case, a U.S. national, Guillermo Sobero of Riverside County, CA, was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, leaving his children fatherless. The Administration responded to this incident by sending 1,000 Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, and the eldest child of the victim was invited to the State of the Union Address. Abu Sayyaf's funds have been seized and are held by the U.S. Treasury at this time. The family of the victim should have access to those funds, at the very least, at the President's discretion.

Similarly, the Administration barred the Iran hostages that were held from 1979-1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist State exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a federal district court held Iran to be liable, the U.S. government intervened and argued that the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering.

Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan government, the Administration lifted sanctions against Libya without requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American servicemen and women and their families were left without recourse to obtain justice. The La Belle victims received no compensation for their suffering.

In addition, a group of American prisoners who were tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government. Although the 17 veterans won their case in the District Court of the District of Columbia, the Administration argued that the Iraqi assets should remain frozen in a U.S. bank account to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Claiming that the judgment should be overturned, the Administration deemed that the Reconstruction effort was more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter pilots who, during their 12 year imprisonment, suffered beatings, burns, and threats of dismemberment.

Finally, the World Trade Center bombing victims were barred from obtaining judgment against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 2001 attacks. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment rendered was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were unavailable for judicial attachment.

One major problem that frustrates the objective of my amendment is the fact that information is not publicly available regarding the amount and/or kind of civil forfeitures made to date. The Executive Branch of our Government has suggested that it has no duty to disclose either the identity of the parties who own civilly forfeited property or the amounts forfeited to date. Absent public disclosure of this very substantive information, it is very difficult for compensation to even be requested--let alone expected for victims of horrific acts of terrorism.

Right now, H.R. 3199 is the most appropriate and timely vehicle in which to address this issue and allow U.S. victims of terrorism to obtain justice from terrorist-supporting or terrorist-housing nations.

The Jackson-Lee Amendment protects terror victims' rights.

Domestic and international terrorism should not be facilitated by barring successful plaintiff-victims from enforcing valid judgments.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their leadership on this whole entire issue of protecting Americans against terrorism and including in that protection of their civil liberties.

This amendment will not only protect Americans against the dangers of life and limb and the loss of life, but give them relief in our courts. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment sponsored by myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a sense of Congress amendment to provide relief to Americans victimized by terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this expands the wiretap authority, but it limits the expansion to cases of terrorism. I would say to the gentleman from California and to the chairman, if the rest of the bill had been limited to terrorism, we would not have to be sitting up here arguing half the night.

I agree with the gentleman, we want to be tough on terrorism, but we don't want to open up the entire criminal code to these very expansive powers. So in this case, I think it is an appropriate expansion of the wiretap because it is limited to terrorism, and I thank the gentleman for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to join my colleague from Virginia in his interest in the security of the Port of Hampton Roads.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well drafted to target the problem of port security. It closes an apparent oversight in the fact that it is not a Federal crime for a vessel operator to fail to stop when ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, and makes it clear that that is a crime. The penalties are increased penalties, but not mandatory minimums, so the increases will make sense.

I will not, however, be supporting the amendment because it has several new death penalties in it. It has death penalties, some of which push the envelope on constitutionality, because some can be imposed even if there is no intent to kill; they are broad enough to even include deaths which result from violating the stowaway statute.

Mr. Chairman, death penalties cannot be a deterrent to suicide bombers, so that part of the bill I think would not be helpful in terms of port security. What we do need in port security is significant increases in funding for port security, funding for bus and rail security, funding for first responders. That is the kind of thing that will make us safer. As to the other parts of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the other cosponsors for their hard work in focusing us on port security, which is desperately needed.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

I would point out that the comments of the gentleman from North Carolina and the chairman of the committee have outlined the fact that this has been worked out with all of the parties involved, and we have no objection.

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

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It provides for the enactment of extremely controversial provisions which we have had inadequate time to consider. We have not had the opportunity to hear critical testimony on controversial aspects of this bill such as the provision to apply the death penalty to offenses where no death results, the change in alternative jury rules and peremptory challenge rules, another change of the number of jurors needed to impose the death penalty and other changes which could constitute constitutional problems.

Another problem with the bill, it provides for expansion of the Federal death penalty, both for crimes that the supporters of the death penalty might think warrant the death penalty, as well as crimes that most people would not expect to be associated with the most severe of penalties.

This bill does not limit crimes through the death penalty eligibility to the heinous crimes or those who have traditionally been considered severe enough to require either a death penalty or even life without parole.

The bill is so broad that it includes offenses such as those related to protection of computers, property offenses and financial or other material support provisions. Because the bill makes attempts and conspiracies to commit such crimes death penalty eligible, it covers those who may have only had a minor role in the offense. If a death results, even if it was not the specific intended result, anyone who is involved in committing or attempting to commit or conspiring to commit the covert offense would be eligible for the death penalty.

The provisions of this bill create a death penalty liability tantamount to a Federal felony murder rule, and it presents constitutional issues as well as questions of the appropriateness of the death penalty in certain cases.

The provisions of this bill will be duplicative of state jurisdiction laws in many instances and actually conflicting with others. One such conflict would be where a State has chosen not to authorize capital punishment and the Federal Government pursues the death penalty against that State's wishes.

Another concern we always have to consider is expansion of the death penalty when we know that there is a frequent error rate in applying the death penalty. One study showed that 68 percent of the death penalty decisions by the trial court were eventually overturned.

Mr. Chairman, there is another conflict or difficulty that will arise in the efforts to further international cooperation in pursuing suspected terrorists. We are already experiencing difficulties in securing the cooperation of

the rest of the civilized world in bringing terrorists to justice due to our existing proliferation of death penalty offenses when other countries will not extradite criminals to the United States if they will be subject to the death penalty. When we add these difficulties to the other controversial issues as to whether someone who supports an organization's social or humanitarian programs knows that it has been designated as a terrorist organization it can only exacerbate the difficulty and further undermine United States efforts.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of the amendment mentioned that hearing we had. I would remind him that the hearing was a hearing on habeas corpus, also the same hearing we heard the issue of the question of whether the death penalty deters murder or other crimes, and this bill. We were given one witness to cover all of that. Our witness covered habeas corpus. We did not have the opportunity to invite a witness to discuss this bill and the policy implications of death penalty where no death occurs and alternate jury rules, peremptory challenges, the number of jurors needed to impose a death penalty, all of these death penalties involved.

So to suggest that that was a fair hearing, I think, does not do justice to actually what happened on that day and the consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As the gentleman said, we had a little piece of a hearing, but it was not much; and we did not have the opportunity to discuss this bill. It was not marked up in subcommittee or the committee. The committee elected not to make it part of the bill, and I would hope that we would make the same decision and defer this until it can be appropriately considered. I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment emphasizes a point that we are trying to do this on the floor without a mark-up, and it may have many unintended consequences. Despite the name of the title, the title of the amendment is ``Combating Terrorism Financing Act of 2005,'' but if you read the provisions, it is not limited to terrorism financing but for all violations of economic sanctions imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. I mean, a senior citizen who has traveled to Cuba on a bicycle excursion or a clergy attempting to send humanitarian services or supplies to Cuba could get caught up in this.

It talks about misuse of Social Security numbers so if somebody misuses a Social Security number to get a job, having nothing to do with terrorism, just is cheating to get a job, they could get caught up in this. It raises questions about sending money to your relatives back home. All of this is implicated in this amendment. It obviously covers terrorism, but we do not know what else it covers. People who get caught up in this are looking at 20-year sentences.

Money-laundering statutes are already very broadly written, and this just broadens it even further. I would hope we would defeat the amendment so we could have some time to make sure it could be limited to terrorism financing and just not every violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other kinds of money- laundering statutes.

We also have had not an opportunity to hear from people that may be involved in this, organizations helping immigrant populations, banks or other agencies that may have an interest in this who we just have not had time to hear from to know what their reaction would be. So I would hope that we would defeat the amendment so we could have more time to consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that these are the kinds of questions which cause me to hope we would defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Could the chairman explain which amendment is being considered at this point?

Could the Reading Clerk read the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Berman- Delahunt amendment. All it does is require a report to Congress on data mining by agencies.

Let me say why this is important. At the end of the last decade, before 9/11 and before the PATRIOT Act was even considered, the FBI had set up a data-mining operation that went far beyond criminal and intelligence investigations and compromised the privacy of literally millions of Americans, and this was done without the knowledge of the Congress of the United States, and it was only as a result of the fact that it did not work and they wasted all of this money that the Congress found out about it.

So I think that before any of the agencies go down this route, there ought to be at least a tip-off to the Members of Congress. I grant the Members that the amendment probably is not properly drafted and we can fix this in conference, and I appreciate the commitment of the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to do that, but I do not think we should turn it down and send a message to the agencies that they can data mine all they want and we are not going to do anything about it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and I hope we can adopt it fairly quickly. What this amendment does is simply add the following predicates to allow law enforcement to go to a judge to seek a wiretap order: Crimes of terrorism such as arson, plastic explosives, attacks on a Federal facility with firearms, and conspiracy to harm persons or property overseas.

I think all of these are legitimate predicates. I would hope the gentleman's amendment is adopted, and thank him for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and hope that the committee adopts it. It provides basic and much-needed protections for our Nation's seaports, and it does so by strengthening the criminal code in various areas where our seaports would be vulnerable to either a criminal act or a terrorist act.

Let me state, however, that the Congress has not been sitting idly by since 9/11 on the issue of protecting seaport security. The container security initiative was passed by this Congress several years ago and is being implemented, both in terms of better targeting of containers that come into our ports, as well as security at the ports and screening before the cargo actually arrives. But in terms of people breaking into our ports, perhaps putting bad materials such as bombs or biological or chemical materials in our ports and in the containers in our ports, this is an amendment that is extremely essential.

For that reason, I would urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding.

Let me say that this amendment has a direct impact on the war against terrorism. When he was testifying on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Deputy Attorney General James Kolbe testified that the first material support for a terrorism case to be tried before a jury involved a group of Hezbollah operatives who had been operating a massive interstate cigarette smuggling scheme. He also testified that since that prosecution, material support charges have been used against other cigarette smuggling plots in Detroit.

From this information, it is obvious that the terrorists are using cigarette smuggling in order to help finance their activities, and that is why the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is a good amendment. It fits in with the antiterrorism tools that the PATRIOT Act reauthorizes, and I would urge its support.

I would also say that as a result of the modification that the gentleman from North Carolina has proposed, there is no longer a question of tribal sovereignty. That has been taken care of in the modification. So anybody who has read the ``Dear Colleague'' letter that was sent out earlier today, that is now out of date, and it is about as accurate as last year's calendar.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for yielding to me and for introducing this amendment.

Let me say that this amendment makes important improvements in the financial provisions of the PATRIOT Act with regard to those who try to prevent terrorists from financing their operations. First of all, I think that trying to disrupt the terrorism operation is a legitimate issue to add to the list of predicate offenses covered under the RICO statute.

I am particularly pleased that there are some changes in the law to attempt to get at the informal money-changing operation called hawalas when those hawalas are used to finance terrorist organizations, and more and more money seems to be transferred through the hawalas system; and I am awfully afraid that that is not being done for legitimate purposes, but for the fact that the regular banking operations are under increasing scrutiny when money transfers take place.

So I would strongly support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would urge the Committee to adopt it. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Reserving the right to object, let me say that I will not object, because I think this modification is a significant improvement to the original amendment.

I realize that this amendment must be further honed, and I pledge to the gentlewoman from Texas my cooperation to attempt to do that in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, the Terrorist Death Penalty Enhancement Act. This measure is a much needed reform for our Federal criminal statutes to ensure that the death penalty is available to deter and punish the most heinous crime in our country. We must remain vigilant and united in sending out one clear message to the terrorists; if you attack our country or threaten our national security and we apprehend you, we will seek the ultimate penalty, the death penalty, against you. This amendment makes needed reforms to ensure that such punishment is carried out and is applied fairly, and is applied swiftly when the facts justify the punishment.

Many of these same provisions were overwhelmingly passed by this House last year as part of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, but removed during conference with the Senate.

As a former State district judge for over 20 years I have presided over five capital murder cases, three of which resulted in the death penalty. I have a unique perspective on the criminal justice system and I understand the importance of safety and the need for America to be tough on its criminals. We must protect our neighborhoods from the threat of violent crimes which, unfortunately, in today's world, includes the threat of terrorist attacks. Congress must act to protect U.S. citizens from such attacks and to bring justice to those who threaten our freedom.

It is unimaginable to think that a convicted terrorist responsible for American deaths could serve his sentence and be released back on the American streets free to act as he chooses. My straightforward legislation will make any terrorist who kills eligible for the Federal death penalty. This legislation will also deny these same terrorists any Federal benefits they otherwise may be eligible to receive. In my experience as a judge, I have witnessed the death penalty used as an important tool in deterring crime and saving lives. I believe it is also an instrument that can deter acts of terrorism and serves as a tool for prosecutors in negotiating sentences.

First, my amendment adds a new criminal provision to impose the death penalty to any terrorist who, while committing a terrorist offense, engages in conduct that results in the death of an individual.

Second, my amendment provides procedures for the death penalty prosecution of air piracy crimes committed before the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act.

Third, my amendment treats terrorist offenses similar to treason and espionage cases so that the government need only prove that such offense created a grave risk of death and did not actually result in the death of a person. For example, consider a terrorist attack as we saw today in London, where a terrorist is carrying a deadly weapon, could be a radiological weapon or device, and prior to the total detonation of that bomb killing innocent civilians, he is caught by the authorities and they prevent that attack. Under this bill he could face the ultimate penalty of death.

In addition to these commonsense reforms, my amendment also authorizes the death penalty for killing that results from participation in nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction threats against the United States, missile systems to destroy aircraft, atomic weapons under the Atomic Energy Act.

Now, with the authorization of these new death penalties I have added some commonsense clarification to the Federal death penalty which is supported by the Justice Department. Let me highlight three of these.

First, my amendment adds a new statutory aggravating factor for obstruction of justice and in particular the killing of any person which is aimed at obstructing any investigation or prosecution.

Second, my amendment clarifies that juries must reach a unanimous sentencing verdict one way or the other for life imprisonment or for death. If the jury does not reach a unanimous sentencing verdict then the government may seek a new sentencing hearing.

Third, my amendment authorizes a judge to proceed with a death penalty case with less than 12 jurors if the excusal of the 12th juror is justified by good cause. There is simply no reason to make witnesses testify, juries sit again after a long and complex trial when a juror for some reason becomes sick or for some reason is unable to serve.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague from Virginia that a legislative hearing was held before the subcommittee on June 30, 2005 on which the Justice Department testified in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the President of the United States on two occasions has stated that we need to give our law enforcement authorities all the tools necessary to fight terrorism, and he agreed that he strongly supported the signal of a death penalty to deter this criminal acts, these criminal acts that are imposed upon our society.

When I decided to run for Congress, it was in response to the 9/11 attack after serving for a long time on the judiciary. I am sponsoring this legislation today because in my experience the death penalty does deter crimes, and it is my hope and my prayer that this tool given to our prosecutors and given to our courts and to our engineers will enable us to better protect freedom and protect our citizens from this disaster that lurks in the shadows along with these terrorists that attack our Nation.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for allowing me to offer this amendment and for all the great work that he has done on this reenactment of the PATRIOT Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Money is a key element of terrorist organizations. If we are to prevent future attacks and continue to dismantle terrorist organizations, we must cut off their access to funding.

In order to thwart terrorists financing, President Bush in September of 2001 signed an executive order freezing the assets of terrorist organizations and their supporters and authorizing the Secretaries of Treasury and State to identify, designate, and freeze the U.S.-based assets that financially facilitate terrorism.

Since then, an unprecedented international effort to freeze terrorism financing has ensued. This has truly been an international effort with 173 nations implementing orders to freeze terrorist assets with more than 100 countries passing new legislation to fight terrorism financing, and 84 countries establishing the Financial Intelligence United to share information helping to combat terrorism.

Terrorist organizations need money, not just to carry out attacks. They especially need funding to continue their operations such as recruiting and training new terrorists and simply supporting their current organizations. One of the most important lessons we have learned is exactly how terrorists and other criminal organizations transmit money through unregulated financial markets.

Like the patchwork of terrorist organizations themselves, terrorism funding does not come from a single source. Terrorism networks are funded through rogue state sponsorship, corrupt charities, and illegitimate businesses fronting as legitimate businesses and using that money for terrorism, also through exploitation of our legitimate markets and financial networks.

Many terrorist organizations use a network known as hawalas to exchange money and finance terrorist activities. These hawalas are an informal exchange in which payments are delivered without money actually being moved. In addition, terrorists engage in criminal activities such as extortion, smuggling and trafficking, credit card and identity fraud, and the narcotics trade to fund their murderous activities.

After September 11, our Federal Government acted aggressively through domestic and international efforts to halt such activities to prevent terrorism financing. Unfortunately, we have learned that these are not enough. My amendment would address some of the loopholes.

One, we increase the penalty for terrorism financing. Under current law, violations only carry a $10,000 fine and a 10-year sentence. My amendment would increase the fine to $50,000 and the sentence to 20 years.

We also update money laundering statutes. They must keep pace to help prevent financing of terrorist activities. As Chancellor Gordon Brown stated last week, prevention of money laundering is the key element of stopping the financing of terrorist groups of the type suspected of planning and carrying out the London bombings.

First, my amendment will add a predicate offense to the money- laundering statutes, such as operating illegal money laundering and transmitting businesses, misuse of Social Security numbers, military- style training of individuals, and a new terrorism financing offense.

My amendment also clarifies the law so that a combination of transactions or parallel transactions can trigger money-laundering statutes.

Mr. Chairman, our PATRIOT Act added a new forfeiture provision for individuals planning or perpetrating the act of terrorism against the United States. My amendment adds a parallel provision for individuals planning or perpetrating an act of terrorism against a foreign state or an international organization acting within the jurisdiction of the United States. This amendment builds on our current laws to address some of the shortfalls in our laws that we have learned about from our law enforcement since 9/11. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Just to answer a couple of points: what we do in the amendment is to help to provide opportunities for a series of predicate offenses. So what you get is an opportunity to follow through a number of transactions to show that there is money laundering. And we have added a couple of new offenses, but there can be a mixture of some legal and illegal transactions to do that.

So if the concern is that a grandmother transmitting money to her family or the other way around, it is not going to trigger a problem under this amendment. It is very clear that there would have to be a series of transactions that are suspect in order for this law to be triggered; and, obviously, there has to be some suspicion of financing terrorism before law enforcement would move forward with that kind of prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who supports the amendment, and also the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, who certainly would have been concerned if the concern of the gentlewoman from California were a legitimate one regarding our language.

It is very clear that there would have to be a series of transactions. That series of transactions would have to lead law enforcement to believe that there is a financing of terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.