Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the holding in Miranda v. Arizona may be interpreted to provide for the admissibility of a terrorist suspect's responses in an interrogation without administration of the Miranda warnings, to the extent that the interrogation is carried out to acquire information concerning other threats to public safety.

That it is sense of the House of Representatives that the public safety exception announced in New York v. Quarles (467 U.S. 649 (1984)) to the holding in Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) may be interpreted such that the responses of a person interrogated in connection with an act of terrorism who has not been administered the warnings described in Miranda are admissible as evidence against that person in a criminal prosecution, to the extent that the interrogation is carried out because of a reasonable concern that the person has information about other threats to public safety.