```

[House Report 107-236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-236
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM 
                         (PATRIOT) ACT OF 2001

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                               H.R. 2975

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                October 11, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-236
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM 
                         (PATRIOT) ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

                October 11, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2975]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2975) to combat terrorism, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................    41
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................    41
Hearings.........................................................    42
Committee Consideration..........................................    42
Votes of the Committee...........................................    42
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    45
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    46
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    46
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................    46
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    51
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    52
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    79
Committee Jurisdiction Letters...................................   156
Markup Transcript................................................   164
Additional Views.................................................   431
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Provide Appropriate Tools Required 
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    The following is the table of contents for this Act:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Construction; severability.

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

                  Subtitle A--Electronic Surveillance

Sec. 101. Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers 
and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 102. Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants.
Sec. 103. Authorized disclosure.
Sec. 104. Savings provision.
Sec. 105. Interception of computer trespasser communications.
Sec. 106. Technical amendment.
Sec. 107. Scope of subpoenas for records of electronic communications.
Sec. 108. Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic 
evidence.
Sec. 109. Clarification of scope.
Sec. 110. Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect 
life and limb.
Sec. 111. Use as evidence.
Sec. 112. Reports concerning the disclosure of the contents of 
electronic communications.

  Subtitle B--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Other Information

Sec. 151. Period of orders of electronic surveillance of non-United 
States persons under foreign intelligence surveillance.
Sec. 152. Multi-point authority.
Sec. 153. Foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 154. Foreign intelligence information sharing.
Sec. 155. Pen register and trap and trace authority.
Sec. 156. Business records.
Sec. 157. Miscellaneous national-security authorities.
Sec. 158. Proposed legislation.
Sec. 159. Presidential authority.
Sec. 160. Clarification of no technology mandates.
Sec. 161. Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures.
Sec. 162. Sunset.

            TITLE II--ALIENS ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY

   Subtitle A--Detention and Removal of Aliens Engaging in Terrorist 
                                Activity

Sec. 201. Changes in classes of aliens who are ineligible for admission 
and deportable due to terrorist activity.
Sec. 202. Changes in designation of foreign terrorist organizations.
Sec. 203. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; 
judicial review.
Sec. 204. Changes in conditions for granting asylum.
Sec. 205. Multilateral cooperation against terrorists.
Sec. 206. Requiring sharing by the Federal bureau of investigation of 
certain criminal record extracts with other Federal agencies in order 
to enhance border security.
Sec. 207. Inadmissibility of aliens engaged in money laundering.
Sec. 208. Program to collect information relating to nonimmigrant 
foreign students and other exchange program participants.
Sec. 209. Protection of northern border.

    Subtitle B--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of 
                               Terrorism

Sec. 211. Special immigrant status.
Sec. 212. Extension of filing or reentry deadlines.
Sec. 213. Humanitarian relief for certain surviving spouses and 
children.
Sec. 214. ``Age-out'' protection for children.
Sec. 215. Temporary administrative relief.
Sec. 216. Evidence of death, disability, or loss of employment.
Sec. 217. No benefits to terrorists or family members of terrorists.
Sec. 218. Definitions.

                      TITLE III--CRIMINAL JUSTICE

                  Subtitle A--Substantive Criminal Law

Sec. 301. Statute of limitation for prosecuting terrorism offenses.
Sec. 302. Alternative maximum penalties for terrorism crimes.
Sec. 303. Penalties for terrorist conspiracies.
Sec. 304. Terrorism crimes as rico predicates.
Sec. 305. Biological weapons.
Sec. 306. Support of terrorism through expert advice or assistance.
Sec. 307. Prohibition against harboring.
Sec. 308. Post-release supervision of terrorists.
Sec. 309. Definition.
Sec. 310. Civil damages.

                     Subtitle B--Criminal Procedure

Sec. 351. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism.
Sec. 352. DNA identification of terrorists.
Sec. 353. Grand jury matters.
Sec. 354. Extraterritoriality.
Sec. 355. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at United States 
facilities abroad.
Sec. 356. Special agent authorities.

                   TITLE IV--FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Sec. 401. Laundering the proceeds of terrorism.
Sec. 402. Material support for terrorism.
Sec. 403. Assets of terrorist organizations.
Sec. 404. Technical clarification relating to provision of material 
support to terrorism.
Sec. 405. Disclosure of tax information in terrorism and national 
security investigations.
Sec. 406. Extraterritorial jurisdiction.

                   TITLE V--EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 501. Office of Justice programs.
Sec. 502. Attorney General's authority to pay rewards.
Sec. 503. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 504. Department of State reward authority.
Sec. 505. Authorization of funds for DEA police training in South and 
Central Asia.
Sec. 506. Public safety officer benefits.

                         TITLE VI--DAM SECURITY

Sec. 601. Security of reclamation dams, facilities, and resources.

                        TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 701. Employment of translators by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
Sec. 702. Review of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 703. Feasibility study on use of biometric identifier scanning 
system with access to the FBI integrated automated fingerprint 
identification system at overseas consular posts and points of entry to 
the United States.
Sec. 704. Study of access.
Sec. 705. Enforcement of certain anti-terrorism judgments.

         TITLE VIII--PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings.
Sec. 803. Background checks.
Sec. 804. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 805. Definitions.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

    Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or unenforceable by 
its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be 
construed so as to give it the maximum effect permitted by law, unless 
such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in 
which event such provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and 
shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of such 
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other, 
dissimilar circumstances.

                    TITLE I--INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

                  Subtitle A--Electronic Surveillance

SEC. 101. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS 
                    AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

    (a) General Limitation on Use by Governmental Agencies.--Section 
3121(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or trap and trace device'' after ``pen 
        register'';
            (2) by inserting ``, routing, addressing,'' after 
        ``dialing''; and
            (3) by striking ``call processing'' and inserting ``the 
        processing and transmitting of wire and electronic 
        communications''.
    (b) Issuance of Orders.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 3123 of title 
        18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) In General.--
            ``(1) Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), 
        the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the 
        installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device 
        anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the 
        attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the 
        information likely to be obtained by such installation and use 
        is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order 
        shall, upon service thereof, apply to any person or entity 
        providing wire or electronic communication service in the 
        United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of 
        the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or 
        entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of 
        such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law 
        enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order 
        shall provide written or electronic certification that the 
        assistance of the person or entity being served is related to 
        the order.
            ``(2) Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), 
        the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the 
        installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device 
        within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that 
        the State law-enforcement or investigative officer has 
        certified to the court that the information likely to be 
        obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing 
        criminal investigation.''.
            (2) Contents of order.--Subsection (b)(1) of section 3123 
        of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by inserting ``or other facility'' 
                        after ``telephone line''; and
                            (ii) by inserting before the semicolon at 
                        the end ``or applied''; and
                    (B) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
                following:
                    ``(C) the attributes of the communications to which 
                the order applies, including the number or other 
                identifier and, if known, the location of the telephone 
                line or other facility to which the pen register or 
                trap and trace device is to be attached or applied, 
                and, in the case of an order authorizing installation 
                and use of a trap and trace device under subsection 
                (a)(2), the geographic limits of the order; and''.
            (3) Nondisclosure requirements.--Subsection (d)(2) of 
        section 3123 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``or other facility'' after ``the 
                line''; and
                    (B) by striking ``, or who has been ordered by the 
                court'' and inserting ``or applied, or who is obligated 
                by the order''.
    (c) Definitions.--
            (1) Court of competent jurisdiction.--Paragraph (2) of 
        section 3127 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
        striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) any district court of the United States 
                (including a magistrate judge of such a court), or any 
                United States court of appeals, having jurisdiction 
                over the offense being investigated; or''.
            (2) Pen register.--Paragraph (3) of section 3127 of title 
        18, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``electronic or other impulses'' 
                and all that follows through ``is attached'' and 
                inserting ``dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling 
                information transmitted by an instrument or facility 
                from which a wire or electronic communication is 
                transmitted (but not including the contents of such 
                communication)''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or process'' after ``device'' 
                each place it appears.
            (3) Trap and trace device.--Paragraph (4) of section 3127 
        of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``or process'' after ``a device''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``of an instrument'' and all that 
                follows through the end and inserting ``or other 
                dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information 
                reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or 
                electronic communication (but not including the 
                contents of such communication);''.
            (4) Conforming amendment.--Section 3127(1) of title 18, 
        United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``and''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, and `contents' '' after `` 
                `electronic communication service' ''.
    (d) No Liability for Internet Service Providers.--Section 3124(d) 
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the terms 
of''.

SEC. 102. SEIZURE OF VOICE-MAIL MESSAGES PURSUANT TO WARRANTS.

    Title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 2510--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking all the words 
                after ``commerce''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (14), by inserting ``wire or'' 
                after ``transmission of''; and
            (2) in section 2703--
                    (A) in the headings for subsections (a) and (b), by 
                striking ``Contents of electronic'' and inserting 
                ``Contents of wire or electronic'';
                    (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``contents of an 
                electronic'' and inserting ``contents of a wire or 
                electronic'' each place it appears; and
                    (C) in subsection (b), by striking ``any 
                electronic'' and inserting ``any wire or electronic'' 
                each place it appears.

SEC. 103. AUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE.

    Section 2510(7) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, and (for purposes only of section 2517 as it relates to 
foreign intelligence information as that term is defined in section 
101(e) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
1801(e))) any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, national security, 
national defense, protective, immigration personnel, or the President 
or Vice President of the United States'' after ``such offenses''.

SEC. 104. SAVINGS PROVISION.

    Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or chapter 121'' and inserting ``, 
        chapter 121, or chapter 206''; and
            (2) by striking ``wire and oral'' and inserting ``wire, 
        oral, and electronic''.

SEC. 105. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER COMMUNICATIONS.

    Chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 2510--
                    (A) in paragraph (17), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and 
                inserting a semi-colon; and
                    (C) by adding after paragraph (18) the following:
            ``(19) `protected computer' has the meaning set forth in 
        section 1030; and
            ``(20) `computer trespasser' means a person who accesses a 
        protected computer without authorization and thus has no 
        reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication 
        transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer.'';
            (2) in section 2511(2), by inserting after paragraph (h) 
        the following:
    ``(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person 
acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic 
communications of a computer trespasser, if--
            ``(i) the owner or operator of the protected computer 
        authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser's 
        communications on the protected computer;
            ``(ii) the person acting under color of law is lawfully 
        engaged in an investigation;
            ``(iii) the person acting under color of law has reasonable 
        grounds to believe that the contents of the computer 
        trespasser's communications will be relevant to the 
        investigation; and
            ``(iv) such interception does not acquire communications 
        other than those transmitted to or from the computer 
        trespasser.''; and
            (3) in section 2520(d)(3), by inserting ``or 2511(2)(i)'' 
        after ``2511(3)''.

SEC. 106. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

    Section 2518(3)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``and'' after the semicolon.

SEC. 107. SCOPE OF SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

    Section 2703(c)(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``entity the name, address, local and long 
        distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or 
        other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of 
        a'' and inserting the following:
    ``entity the--
            ``(i) name;
            ``(ii) address;
            ``(iii) local and long distance telephone connection 
        records, or records of session times and durations;
            ``(iv) length of service (including start date) and types 
        of service utilized;
            ``(v) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber 
        number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network 
        address; and
            ``(vi) means and source of payment (including any credit 
        card or bank account number);
of a''; and
            (2) by striking ``and the types of services the subscriber 
        or customer utilized,'' after ``of a subscriber to or customer 
        of such service''.

SEC. 108. NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR ELECTRONIC 
                    EVIDENCE.

    Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 2703, by striking ``under the Federal Rules 
        of Criminal Procedure'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of 
        Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the 
        offense under investigation''; and
            (2) in section 2711--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding the following new paragraph at the 
                end:
            ``(3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 3127, and includes any 
        Federal court within that definition, without geographic 
        limitation.''.

SEC. 109. CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE.

    Section 2511(2) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 
section 105(2) of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(j) With respect to a voluntary or obligatory disclosure of 
information (other than information revealing customer cable viewing 
activity) under this chapter, chapter 121, or chapter 206, subsections 
(c)(2)(B) and (h) of section 631 of the Communications Act of 1934 do 
not apply.''.

SEC. 110. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT 
                    LIFE AND LIMB.

    (a) Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

``Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or 
                    records'' ;

            (2) in subsection (a)(2)(B) by striking the period and 
        inserting ``; and'';
            (3) in subsection (a), by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
        following:
            ``(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic 
        communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge 
        a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or 
        customer of such service (not including the contents of 
        communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any 
        governmental entity.'';
            (4) in subsection (b), by striking ``Exceptions.--A person 
        or entity'' and inserting ``Exceptions for Disclosure of 
        Communications.--A provider described in subsection (a)'';
            (5) in subsection (b)(6)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; or'';
                    (C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the 
                following:
                    ``(C) if the provider reasonably believes that an 
                emergency involving immediate danger of death or 
                serious physical injury to any person requires 
                disclosure of the information without delay.''; and
            (6) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
    ``(c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.--A provider 
described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information 
pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not 
including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) 
or (a)(2))--
            ``(1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
            ``(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or 
        subscriber;
            ``(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of 
        the service or to the protection of the rights or property of 
        the provider of that service;
            ``(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably 
        believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death 
        or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure 
        of the information; or
            ``(5) to any person other than a governmental entity.''.
    (b) Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) so that the section heading reads as follows:

``Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or 
                    records'';

            (2) in subsection (c)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Except'' and 
                all that follows through ``only when'' in subparagraph 
                (B) and inserting ``A governmental entity may require a 
                provider of electronic communication service or remote 
                computing service to disclose a record or other 
                information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer 
                of such service (not including the contents of 
                communications) only when'';
                    (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii) 
                of subparagraph (B);
                    (C) by striking the period at the end of clause 
                (iv) of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``; or'';
                    (D) by inserting after clause (iv) of subparagraph 
                (B) the following:
            ``(v) seeks information pursuant to subparagraph (B).'';
                    (E) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(B)'' and 
                inserting ``(A)''; and
                    (F) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
                subparagraph (B); and
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``or certification'' and 
        inserting ``certification, or statutory authorization''.
    (c) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 121 of title 
18, United States Code, is amended so that the items relating to 
sections 2702 through 2703 read as follows:

``2702.  Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.
``2703.  Required disclosure of customer communications or records.''.

SEC. 111. USE AS EVIDENCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 2515 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``wire or oral'' in the heading and 
        inserting ``wire, oral, or electronic'';
            (2) by striking ``Whenever any wire or oral communication 
        has been intercepted'' and inserting ``(a) Except as provided 
        in subsection (b), whenever any wire, oral, or electronic 
        communication has been intercepted, or any electronic 
        communication in electronic storage has been disclosed'';
            (3) by inserting ``or chapter 121'' after ``this chapter''; 
        and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the disclosure, before a 
grand jury or in a criminal trial, hearing, or other criminal 
proceeding, of the contents of a communication, or evidence derived 
therefrom, against a person alleged to have intercepted, used, or 
disclosed the communication in violation of this chapter, or chapter 
121, or participated in such violation.''.
    (b) Section 2517.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2517 are each 
amended by inserting ``or under the circumstances described in section 
2515(b)'' after ``by this chapter''.
    (c) Section 2518.--Section 2518 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (7), by striking ``subsection (d)'' and 
        inserting ``subsection (8)(d)''; and
            (2) in subsection (10)--
                    (A) in paragraph (a)--
                            (i) by striking ``or oral'' each place it 
                        appears and inserting ``, oral, or 
                        electronic'';
                            (ii) by striking the period at the end of 
                        clause (iii) and inserting a semicolon; and
                            (iii) by inserting ``except that no 
                        suppression may be ordered under the 
                        circumstances described in section 2515(b).'' 
                        before ``Such motion''; and
                    (B) by striking paragraph (c).
    (d) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2515 in the 
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 119 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire, oral, or 
electronic communications.''.

SEC. 112. REPORTS CONCERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF 
                    ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

    Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g) Reports Concerning the Disclosure of the Contents of 
Electronic Communications.--
            ``(1) By January 31 of each calendar year, the judge 
        issuing or denying an order, warrant, or subpoena, or the 
        authority issuing or denying a subpoena, under subsection (a) 
        or (b) of this section during the preceding calendar year shall 
        report on each such order, warrant, or subpoena to the 
        Administrative Office of the United States Courts--
                    ``(A) the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena 
                was applied for;
                    ``(B) the kind of order, warrant, or subpoena 
                applied for;
                    ``(C) the fact that the order, warrant, or subpoena 
                was granted as applied for, was modified, or was 
                denied;
                    ``(D) the offense specified in the order, warrant, 
                subpoena, or application;
                    ``(E) the identity of the agency making the 
                application; and
                    ``(F) the nature of the facilities from which or 
                the place where the contents of electronic 
                communications were to be disclosed.
            ``(2) In January of each year the Attorney General or an 
        Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney 
        General shall report to the Administrative Office of the United 
        States Courts--
                    ``(A) the information required by subparagraphs (A) 
                through (F) of paragraph (1) of this subsection with 
                respect to each application for an order, warrant, or 
                subpoena made during the preceding calendar year; and
                    ``(B) a general description of the disclosures made 
                under each such order, warrant, or subpoena, 
                including--
                            ``(i) the approximate number of all 
                        communications disclosed and, of those, the 
                        approximate number of incriminating 
                        communications disclosed;
                            ``(ii) the approximate number of other 
                        communications disclosed; and
                            ``(iii) the approximate number of persons 
                        whose communications were disclosed.
            ``(3) In June of each year, beginning in 2003, the Director 
        of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall 
        transmit to the Congress a full and complete report concerning 
        the number of applications for orders, warrants, or subpoenas 
        authorizing or requiring the disclosure of the contents of 
        electronic communications pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) 
        of this section and the number of orders, warrants, or 
        subpoenas granted or denied pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) 
        of this section during the preceding calendar year. Such report 
        shall include a summary and analysis of the data required to be 
        filed with the Administrative Office by paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        of this subsection. The Director of the Administrative Office 
        of the United States Courts is authorized to issue binding 
        regulations dealing with the content and form of the reports 
        required to be filed by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
        subsection.''.

  Subtitle B--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Other Information

SEC. 151. PERIOD OF ORDERS OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED 
                    STATES PERSONS UNDER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                    SURVEILLANCE.

    (a) Including Agents of a Foreign Power.--(1) Section 105(e)(1) of 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
1805(e)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or an agent of a foreign power, 
as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A),'' after ``or (3),''.
    (2) Section 304(d)(1) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1824(d)(1)) is amended 
by inserting ``or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 
101(b)(1)(A),'' after ``101(a),''.
    (b) Period of Order.--Such section 304(d)(1) is further amended by 
striking ``forty-five'' and inserting ``90''.

SEC. 152. MULTI-POINT AUTHORITY.

    Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, or, in 
circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of 
the electronic surveillance may have the effect of thwarting the 
identification of a specified person, such other persons,'' after 
``specified person''.

SEC. 153. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

    Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and 303(a)(7)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B)) are 
each amended by striking ``that the'' and inserting ``that a 
significant''.

SEC. 154. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION SHARING.

    It shall be lawful for foreign intelligence information (as that 
term is defined in section 101(e) of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(e)) obtained as part of a 
criminal investigation (including information obtained pursuant to 
chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code) to be provided to any 
Federal law-enforcement-, intelligence-, protective-, national-defense, 
or immigration personnel, or the President or the Vice President of the 
United States, for the performance of official duties.

SEC. 155. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY.

    Section 402(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
(50 U.S.C. 1842(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) by inserting ``from the telephone line to which 
                the pen register or trap and trace device is to be 
                attached, or the communication instrument or device to 
                be covered by the pen register or trap and trace 
                device'' after ``obtained''; and
                    (B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; 
                and
            (3) by striking paragraph (3).

SEC. 156. BUSINESS RECORDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended to read as 
follows:
   ``access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 
                 international terrorism investigations
    ``Sec. 501. (a) In any investigation to gather foreign intelligence 
information or an investigation concerning international terrorism, 
such investigation being conducted by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation under such guidelines as the Attorney General may approve 
pursuant to Executive Order No. 12333 (or a successor order), the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the 
Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in 
Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production 
of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, 
and other items) that are relevant to the investigation.
    ``(b) Each application under this section--
            ``(1) shall be made to--
                    ``(A) a judge of the court established by section 
                103(a) of this Act; or
                    ``(B) a United States magistrate judge under 
                chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is 
                publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United 
                States to have the power to hear applications and grant 
                orders for the release of records under this section on 
                behalf of a judge of that court; and
            ``(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought 
        for an investigation described in subsection (a).
    ``(c)(1) Upon application made pursuant to this section, the judge 
shall enter an ex parte order as requested requiring the production the 
tangible things sought if the judge finds that the application 
satisfies the requirements of this section.
    ``(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is 
issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
    ``(d) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under 
an order issued pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any 
other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed 
to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or 
context.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 502 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
1862) is repealed.
    (2) Section 503 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1863) is redesignated as 
section 502.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents at the beginning of 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
seq.) is amended by striking the items relating to title V and 
inserting the following:

``TITLE V--ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                                PURPOSES

``Sec. 501. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence 
and international terrorism investigations.
``Sec. 502. Congressional oversight.''.

SEC. 157. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL-SECURITY AUTHORITIES.

    (a) Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) by inserting ``, or electronic communication 
                transactional records'' after ``toll billing records''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``made that'' and all that follows 
                through the end of such paragraph and inserting ``made 
                that the name, address, length of service, and toll 
                billing records sought are relevant to an authorized 
                foreign counterintelligence investigation; and''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``made that'' and all 
        that follows through the end of such paragraph and inserting 
        ``made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized 
        foreign counterintelligence investigation.''.
    (b) Section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Public Law 90-
321; 15 U.S.C. 1681u), as added by section 601(a) of the Intelligence 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-93; 110 Stat. 974), is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``writing that'' and all 
        that follows through the end and inserting ``writing that such 
        information is necessary for the conduct of an authorized 
        foreign counterintelligence investigation.'';
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``writing that'' and all 
        that follows through the end and inserting ``writing that such 
        information is necessary for the conduct of an authorized 
        foreign counterintelligence investigation.''; and
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``camera that'' and all 
        that follows through ``States.'' and inserting ``camera that 
        the consumer report is necessary for the conduct of an 
        authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation.''.

SEC. 158. PROPOSED LEGISLATION.

    Not later than August 31, 2003, the President shall propose 
legislation relating to the provisions set to expire by section 160 of 
this Act as the President may judge necessary and expedient.

SEC. 159. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

    Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1702) is amended in subsection (a)(1)--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) in clause (ii), by adding ``or'' after 
                ``thereof,''; and
                    (B) by striking clause (iii) and inserting the 
                following:
                    ``(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or 
                securities,
        by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the United States;'';
            (2) by striking after subparagraph (B), ``by any person, or 
        with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of 
        the United States.'';
            (3) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) by inserting after ``investigate'' the 
                following: ``, block during the pendency of an 
                investigation for a period of not more than 90 days 
                (which may be extended by an additional 60 days if the 
                President determines that such blocking is necessary to 
                carry out the purposes of this Act)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``interest;'' and inserting 
                ``interest, by any person, or with respect to any 
                property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
                States; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(C) when a statute has been enacted authorizing the use 
        of force by United States armed forces against a foreign 
        country, foreign organization, or foreign national, or when the 
        United States has been subject to an armed attack by a foreign 
        country, foreign organization, or foreign national, confiscate 
        any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 
        of any foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign 
        national against whom United States armed forces may be used 
        pursuant to such statute or, in the case of an armed attack 
        against the United States, that the President determines has 
        planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such attack; and
                    ``(i) all right, title, and interest in any 
                property so confiscated shall vest when, as, and upon 
                the terms directed by the President, in such agency or 
                person as the President may designate from time to 
                time,
                    ``(ii) upon such terms and conditions as the 
                President may prescribe, such interest or property 
                shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or 
                otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the 
                benefit of the United States, except that the proceeds 
                of any such liquidation or sale, or any cash assets, 
                shall be segregated from other United States Government 
                funds and shall be used only pursuant to a statute 
                authorizing the expenditure of such proceeds or assets, 
                and
                    ``(iii) such designated agency or person may 
                perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment 
                or furtherance of these purposes.''.

SEC. 160. CLARIFICATION OF NO TECHNOLOGY MANDATES.

    Nothing in this Act shall impose any additional technical 
obligation or requirement on a provider of wire or electronic 
communication service or other person to furnish facilities, services, 
or technical assistance.

SEC. 161. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURES.

    (a) Chapter 119.--Section 2520 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) of subsection (c) as 
        paragraph (3);
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) of subsection (c) the 
        following:
    ``(2) In an action under this section by a citizen or legal 
permanent resident of the United States against the United States or 
any Federal investigative or law enforcement officer (or against any 
State investigative or law enforcement officer for disclosure or 
unlawful use of information obtained from Federal investigative or law 
enforcement officers), the court may assess as damages whichever is the 
greater of--
            ``(A) the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff 
        and any profits made by the violator as a result of the 
        violation; or
            ``(B) statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 
        a day for each day of violation or $10,000.''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or use by 
an investigative or law enforcement officer of information beyond the 
extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for 
purposes of section 2520(a).
    ``(g) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or her conclusions and 
the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, 
Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    ``(h) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (b) Chapter 121.--Section 2707 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The 
        court'';
            (2) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
    ``(2) In an action under this section by a citizen or legal 
permanent resident of the United States against the United States or 
any Federal investigative or law enforcement officer (or against any 
State investigative or law enforcement officer for disclosure or 
unlawful use of information obtained from Federal investigative or law 
enforcement officers), the court may assess as damages whichever is the 
greater of--
            ``(A) the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff 
        and any profits made by the violator as a result of the 
        violation; or
            ``(B) statutory damages of $10,000.''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or use by 
an investigative or law enforcement officer of information beyond the 
extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for 
purposes of section 2707(a).
    ``(g) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or her conclusions and 
the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, 
Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    ``(h) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (c) Chapter 206.--
            (1) In general.--Chapter 206 of title 18, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3128. Civil action

    ``(a) Cause of Action.--Except as provided in subsections (d) and 
(e) of section 3124, any person aggrieved by any violation of this 
chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which 
engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.
    ``(b) Relief.--In any action under this section, appropriate relief 
includes--
            ``(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory 
        relief as may be appropriate;
            ``(2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in 
        appropriate cases; and
            ``(3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation 
        costs reasonably incurred.
    ``(c) Damages.--In any action under this section, the court may 
assess as damages whichever is the greater of--
            ``(1) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the 
        plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of 
        the violation; or
            ``(2) statutory damages of $10,000.
    ``(d) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not be 
commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the claimant 
first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
    ``(e) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or use by 
an investigative or law enforcement officer of information beyond the 
extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for 
purposes of section 3128(a).
    ``(f) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or her conclusions and 
the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, 
Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    ``(g) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (2) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 206 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new item:

``3128. Civil action.''.
    (d) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.--(1) Section 110 
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1810) 
is amended--
            (A) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Civil Action.--'';
            (B) by inserting ``or entity'' after ``shall have a cause 
        of action against any person'';
            (C) by striking ``(a) actual'' and inserting ``(1) 
        actual'';
            (D) by striking ``(b) punitive'' and inserting ``(2) 
        punitive'';
            (E) by striking ``(c) reasonable'' and inserting ``(3) 
        reasonable'';
            (F) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
            (G) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not be 
commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the claimant 
first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
    ``(c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, the head shall report conclusions for the 
determination and the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General 
for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
    ``(d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (2) Section 308 of the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1828) is amended--
            (A) by inserting ``(a) Civil Action.--'' before ``An 
        aggrieved person,'';
            (B) by inserting ``or entity'' after ``shall have a cause 
        of action against any person'';
            (C) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''; and
            (D) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not be 
commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the claimant 
first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
    ``(c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, the head shall report the conclusions for the 
determination and the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General 
for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
    ``(d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (3)(A) Title IV of the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new sections:
                              ``penalties
    ``Sec. 407. (a) Prohibited activities.--A person is guilty of an 
offense if the person intentionally--
            ``(1) installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace 
        device under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
            ``(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of 
        law by using a pen register or trap and trace device, knowing 
        or having reason to know that the information was obtained 
        through using a pen register or trap and trace device not 
        authorized by statute.
    ``(b) Defense.--It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 
(a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer 
engaged in the course of his official duties and the pen register or 
trap and trace device was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a 
search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
    ``(c) Penalties.--An offense described in this section is 
punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not 
more than five years, or both.
    ``(d) Federal Jurisdiction .--There is Federal jurisdiction over an 
offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an 
officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was 
committed.
                           ``civil liability
    ``Sec. 408. (a) Civil Action.--An aggrieved person, other than a 
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 
101(a) or (b)(1)(A), respectively, who has been subjected to a pen 
register or trap and trace device or about whom information obtained by 
a pen register or trap and trace device has been disclosed or used in 
violation of section 407 shall have a cause of action against any 
person or entity who committed such violation and shall be entitled to 
recover--
            ``(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages 
        of $10,000, whichever is greater;
            ``(2) punitive damages; and
            ``(3) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation 
        and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
    ``(b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not be 
commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the claimant 
first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
    ``(c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that the 
United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated any 
provision of this section and the court finds that the circumstances 
surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not an officer 
or employee thereof acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
the violation, the agency or bureau shall promptly initiate a 
proceeding to determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
against the officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. 
In such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines discipline 
is not appropriate, the head shall report the conclusions for the 
determination and the reasons therefor to the Deputy Inspector General 
for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
    ``(d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against the 
United States shall be conducted under the procedures of the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United States shall be deducted 
from the budget of the appropriate agency or bureau employing or 
managing the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
violation.''.
    (B) The table of contents at the beginning of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title IV the 
following new items:

``Sec. 407. Penalties.
``Sec. 408. Civil liability.''.

SEC. 162. SUNSET.

    This title and the amendments made by this title (other than 
sections 106 (relating to technical amendment), 109 (relating to 
clarification of scope), and 159 (relating to presidential authority)) 
and the amendments made by those sections shall take effect on the date 
of enactment of this Act and shall cease to have any effect on December 
31, 2003.

            TITLE II--ALIENS ENGAGING IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY

   Subtitle A--Detention and Removal of Aliens Engaging in Terrorist 
                                Activity

SEC. 201. CHANGES IN CLASSES OF ALIENS WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION 
                    AND DEPORTABLE DUE TO TERRORIST ACTIVITY.

    (a) Aliens Ineligible for Admission Due to Terrorist Activities.--
Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i)--
                    (A) in subclauses (I), (II), and (III), by striking 
                the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) by amending subclause (IV) to read as follows:
                                    ``(IV) is a representative of--
                                            ``(a) a foreign terrorist 
                                        organization, as designated by 
                                        the Secretary of State under 
                                        section 219; or
                                            ``(b) a political, social, 
                                        or other similar group whose 
                                        public endorsement of terrorist 
                                        activity the Secretary of State 
                                        has determined undermines the 
                                        efforts of the United States to 
                                        reduce or eliminate terrorist 
                                        activities;'';
                    (C) in subclause (V), by striking any comma at the 
                end, by striking any ``or'' at the end, and by adding 
                ``; or'' at the end; and
                    (D) by inserting after subclause (V) the following:
                                    ``(VI) has used the alien's 
                                prominence within a foreign state or 
                                the United States to endorse or espouse 
                                terrorist activity, or to persuade 
                                others to support terrorist activity or 
                                a terrorist organization, in a way that 
                                the Secretary of State has determined 
                                undermines the efforts of the United 
                                States to reduce or eliminate terrorist 
                                activities;'';
            (2) in clause (ii)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by 
                striking ``(or which, if committed in the United 
                States,'' and inserting ``(or which, if it had been or 
                were to be committed in the United States,''; and
                    (B) in subclause (V)(b), by striking ``explosive or 
                firearm'' and inserting ``explosive, firearm, or other 
                object'';
            (3) by amending clause (iii) to read as follows:
                            ``(iii) Engage in terrorist activity 
                        defined.--As used in this Act, the term `engage 
                        in terrorist activity' means, in an individual 
                        capacity or as a member of an organization--
                                    ``(I) to commit a terrorist 
                                activity;
                                    ``(II) to plan or prepare to commit 
                                a terrorist activity;
                                    ``(III) to gather information on 
                                potential targets for a terrorist 
                                activity;
                                    ``(IV) to solicit funds or other 
                                things of value for--
                                            ``(a) a terrorist activity;
                                            ``(b) an organization 
                                        designated as a foreign 
                                        terrorist organization under 
                                        section 219; or
                                            ``(c) a terrorist 
                                        organization described in 
                                        clause (v)(II), but only if the 
                                        solicitor knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, that the 
                                        solicitation would further a 
                                        terrorist activity;
                                    ``(V) to solicit any individual--
                                            ``(a) to engage in conduct 
                                        otherwise described in this 
                                        clause;
                                            ``(b) for membership in a 
                                        terrorist government;
                                            ``(c) for membership in an 
                                        organization designated as a 
                                        foreign terrorist organization 
                                        under section 219; or
                                            ``(d) for membership in a 
                                        terrorist organization 
                                        described in clause (v)(II), 
                                        but only if the solicitor 
                                        knows, or reasonably should 
                                        know, that the solicitation 
                                        would further a terrorist 
                                        activity; 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, and radiological 
                                weapons), explosives, or training--
                                            ``(a) for the commission of 
                                        a terrorist activity;
                                            ``(b) to any individual who 
                                        the actor knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, has committed or 
                                        plans to commit a terrorist 
                                        activity;
                                            ``(c) to an organization 
                                        designated as a foreign 
                                        terrorist organization under 
                                        section 219; or
                                            ``(d) to a terrorist 
                                        organization described in 
                                        clause (v)(II), but only if the 
                                        actor knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, that the act would 
                                        further a terrorist 
                                        activity.''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(v) Terrorist organization defined.--As 
                        used in this subparagraph, the term `terrorist 
                        organization' means--
                                    ``(I) an organization designated as 
                                a foreign terrorist organization under 
                                section 219; or
                                    ``(II) with regard to a group that 
                                is not an organization described in 
                                subclause (I), a group of 2 or more 
                                individuals, whether organized or not, 
                                which engages in, or which has a 
                                significant subgroup which engages in, 
                                the activities described in subclause 
                                (I), (II), or (III) of clause (iii).
                            ``(vi) Special rule for material support.--
                        Clause (iii)(VI)(b) shall not be construed to 
                        include the affording of material support to an 
                        individual who committed or planned to commit a 
                        terrorist activity, if the alien establishes by 
                        clear and convincing evidence that such support 
                        was afforded only after such individual 
                        permanently and publicly renounced, rejected 
                        the use of, and had ceased to engage in, 
                        terrorist activity.''.
    (b) Aliens Ineligible for Admission Due to Endangerment.--Section 
212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) Endangerment.--Any alien who the Secretary of 
                State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or 
                the Attorney General, after consultation with the 
                Secretary of State, determines has been associated with 
                a terrorist organization and intends while in the 
                United States to engage solely, principally, or 
                incidentally in activities that could endanger the 
                welfare, safety, or security of the United States is 
                inadmissible.''.
    (c) Aliens Deportable Due to Terrorist Activities.--Section 
237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality (8 U.S.C. 
1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien is 
                deportable who--
                            ``(i) has engaged, is engaged, or at any 
                        time after admission engages in terrorist 
                        activity (as defined in section 
                        212(a)(3)(B)(iii));
                            ``(ii) is a representative (as defined in 
                        section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)) of--
                                    ``(I) a foreign terrorist 
                                organization, as designated by the 
                                Secretary of State under section 219; 
                                or
                                    ``(II) a political, social, or 
                                other similar group whose public 
                                endorsement of terrorist activity--
                                            ``(a) is intended and 
                                        likely to incite or produce 
                                        imminent lawless action; and
                                            ``(b) has been determined 
                                        by the Secretary of State to 
                                        undermine the efforts of the 
                                        United States to reduce or 
                                        eliminate terrorist activities; 
                                        or
                            ``(iii) has used the alien's prominence 
                        within a foreign state or the United States--
                                    ``(I) to endorse, in a manner that 
                                is intended and likely to incite or 
                                produce imminent lawless action and 
                                that has been determined by the 
                                Secretary of State to undermine the 
                                efforts of the United States to reduce 
                                or eliminate terrorist activities, 
                                terrorist activity; or
                                    ``(II) to persuade others, in a 
                                manner that is intended and likely to 
                                incite or produce imminent lawless 
                                action and that has been determined by 
                                the Secretary of State to undermine the 
                                efforts of the United States to reduce 
                                or eliminate terrorist activities, to 
                                support terrorist activity or a 
                                terrorist organization (as defined in 
                                section 212(a)(3)(B)(v)).''.
    (d) Retroactive Application of Amendments.--
            (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
        take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall 
        apply to--
                    (A) actions taken by an alien before such date, as 
                well as actions taken on or after such date; and
                    (B) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry 
                or attempted entry into the United States--
                            (i) in removal proceedings on or after such 
                        date (except for proceedings in which there has 
                        been a final administrative decision before 
                        such date); or
                            (ii) seeking admission to the United States 
                        on or after such date.
            (2) Special rule for aliens in exclusion or deportation 
        proceedings.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
        amendments made by this section shall apply to all aliens in 
        exclusion or deportation proceedings on or after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act (except for proceedings in which 
        there has been a final administrative decision before such 
        date) as if such proceedings were removal proceedings.
            (3) Special rule for section 219 organizations.--
                    (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and 
                (2), no alien shall be considered inadmissible under 
                section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
                Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)), or deportable under section 
                237(a)(4)(B) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)), by 
                reason of the amendments made by subsection (a), on the 
                ground that the alien engaged in a terrorist activity 
                described in subclause (IV)(b), (V)(c), or (VI)(c) of 
                section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of such Act (as so amended) 
                with respect to a group at any time when the group was 
                not a foreign terrorist organization designated by the 
                Secretary of State under section 219 of such Act (8 
                U.S.C. 1189).
                    (B) Construction.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
                construed to prevent an alien from being considered 
                inadmissible or deportable for having engaged in a 
                terrorist activity--
                            (i) described in subclause (IV)(b), (V)(c), 
                        or (VI)(c) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of such 
                        Act (as so amended) with respect to a foreign 
                        terrorist organization at any time when such 
                        organization was designated by the Secretary of 
                        State under section 219 of such Act; or
                            (ii) described in subclause (IV)(c), 
                        (V)(d), or (VI)(d) of section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii) 
                        of such Act (as so amended) with respect to any 
                        group described in any of such subclauses.

SEC. 202. CHANGES IN DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.--Section 219(a) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking 
                ``212(a)(3)(B));'' and inserting ``212(a)(3)(B)), 
                engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) 
                of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
                Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains 
                the capability and intent to engage in terrorist 
                activity or to engage in terrorism (as so defined);''; 
                and
                    (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``or 
                terrorism'' after ``activity'';
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as 
                follows:
                    ``(A) Notice.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Seven days before a 
                        designation is made under this subsection, the 
                        Secretary of State shall, by classified 
                        communication, notify the Speaker and minority 
                        leader of the House of Representatives, the 
                        President pro tempore, majority leader, and 
                        minority leader of the Senate, the members of 
                        the relevant committees, and the Secretary of 
                        the Treasury, in writing, of the intent to 
                        designate a foreign organization under this 
                        subsection, together with the findings made 
                        under paragraph (1) with respect to that 
                        organization, and the factual basis therefor.
                            ``(ii) Publication of designation.--The 
                        Secretary of State shall publish the 
                        designation in the Federal Register seven days 
                        after providing the notification under clause 
                        (i).'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(A).'' and 
                inserting ``(A)(ii).''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``paragraph 
                (2),'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)(i),'';
            (3) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``subsection (c).'' 
        and inserting ``subsection (b).';
            (4) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting after the first 
        sentence the following: ``The Secretary may also redesignate 
        such organization at the end of any 2-year redesignation period 
        (but not sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of such 
        period) for an additional 2-year period upon a finding that the 
        relevant circumstances described in paragraph (1) still exist. 
        Any redesignation shall be effective immediately following the 
        end of the prior 2-year designation or redesignation period 
        unless a different effective date is provided in such 
        redesignation.'';
            (5) in paragraph (6)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by 
                        inserting ``or a redesignation made under 
                        paragraph (4)(B)'' after ``paragraph (1)'';
                            (ii) in clause (i)--
                                    (I) by inserting ``or 
                                redesignation'' after ``designation'' 
                                the first place it appears; and
                                    (II) by striking ``of the 
                                designation;'' and inserting a 
                                semicolon; and
                            (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``of the 
                        designation.'' and inserting a period;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``through 
                (4)'' and inserting ``and (3)''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Effective date.--Any revocation shall take 
                effect on the date specified in the revocation or upon 
                publication in the Federal Register if no effective 
                date is specified.'';
            (6) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``, or the revocation of 
        a redesignation under paragraph (6),'' after ``(5) or (6)''; 
        and
            (7) in paragraph (8)--
                    (A) by striking ``(1)(B),'' and inserting ``(2)(B), 
                or if a redesignation under this subsection has become 
                effective under paragraph (4)(B)'';
                    (B) by inserting ``or an alien in a removal 
                proceeding'' after ``criminal action''; and
                    (C) by inserting ``or redesignation'' before ``as a 
                defense''.
    (b) Authority to Initiate Designations, Redesignations, and 
Revocations.--Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1189), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
            (1) by striking ``Secretary'' each place such term appears, 
        excluding subparagraphs (A) and (C) of subsection (a)(2), and 
        inserting ``official specified under subsection (d)'';
            (2) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; and'' at the 
                end and inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Implementation of Duties and Authorities.--
            ``(1) By secretary or attorney general.--Except as 
        otherwise provided in this subsection, the duties under this 
        section shall, and authorities under this section may, be 
        exercised by--
                    ``(A) the Secretary of State--
                            ``(i) after consultation with the Secretary 
                        of the Treasury and with the concurrence of the 
                        Attorney General; or
                            ``(ii) upon instruction by the President 
                        pursuant to paragraph (2); or
                    ``(B) the Attorney General--
                            ``(i) after consultation with the Secretary 
                        of the Treasury and with the concurrence of the 
                        Secretary of State; or
                            ``(ii) upon instruction by the President 
                        pursuant to paragraph (2).
            ``(2) Concurrence.--The Secretary of State and the Attorney 
        General shall each seek the other's concurrence in accordance 
        with paragraph (1). In any case in which such concurrence is 
        denied or withheld, the official seeking the concurrence shall 
        so notify the President and shall request the President to make 
        a determination as to how the issue shall be resolved. Such 
        notification and request of the President may not be made 
        before the earlier of--
                    ``(A) the date on which a denial of concurrence is 
                received; or
                    ``(B) the end of the 60-day period beginning on the 
                date the concurrence was sought.
            ``(3) Exception.--It shall be the duty of the Secretary of 
        State to carry out the procedural requirements of paragraphs 
        (2)(A) and (6)(B) of subsection (a) in all cases, including 
        cases in which a designation or revocation is initiated by the 
        Attorney General.''.

SEC. 203. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; 
                    JUDICIAL REVIEW.

    (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 
et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 236 the following:
``mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial 
                                 review
    ``Sec. 236A. (a) Detention of Terrorist Aliens.--
            ``(1) Custody.--The Attorney General shall take into 
        custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
            ``(2) Release.--Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and 
        (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an 
        alien until the alien is removed from the United States or 
        found not to be inadmissible or deportable, as the case may be. 
        Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be 
        maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which 
        the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted 
        the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien 
        is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3).
            ``(3) Certification.--The Attorney General may certify an 
        alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has 
        reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
                    ``(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 
                212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 
                237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
                    ``(B) is engaged in any other activity that 
                endangers the national security of the United States.
            ``(4) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may delegate the 
        authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy 
        Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate 
        such authority.
            ``(5) Commencement of proceedings.--The Attorney General 
        shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal 
        proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, 
        not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. 
        If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, 
        the Attorney General shall release the alien.
            ``(6) Limitation on indefinite detention.--An alien 
        detained under paragraph (1) who has been ordered removed based 
        on one or more of the grounds of inadmissibility or 
        deportability referred to in paragraph (3)(A), who has not been 
        removed within the removal period specified under section 
        241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably 
        foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of 
        up to six months if the Attorney General demonstrates that the 
        release of the alien will not protect the national security of 
        the United States or adequately ensure the safety of the 
        community or any person.
    ``(b) Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review.--Judicial review of any 
action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review 
of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or 
(a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings initiated 
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241 of 
title 28, United States Code, except as provided in the preceding 
sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus 
petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 236 the following:

``Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas 
corpus; judicial review.''.
    (c) Reports.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney 
General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--
            (1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) 
        of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection 
        (a);
            (2) the grounds for such certifications;
            (3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
            (4) the length of the detention for each alien so 
        certified; and
            (5) the number of aliens so certified who--
                    (A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
                    (B) were removed;
                    (C) the Attorney General has determined are no 
                longer an alien who may be so certified; or
                    (D) were released from detention.

SEC. 204. CHANGES IN CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING ASYLUM.

    (a) In General.--Section 208(b)(2)(A)(v) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``inadmissible under'' each place such term 
        appears and inserting ``described in''; and
            (2) by striking ``removable under'' and inserting 
        ``described in''.
    (b) Retroactive Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
Act and shall apply to--
            (1) actions taken by an alien before such date, as well as 
        actions taken on or after such date; and
            (2) all aliens, without regard to the date of entry or 
        attempted entry into the United States, whose application for 
        asylum is pending on or after such date (except for 
        applications with respect to which there has been a final 
        administrative decision before such date).

SEC. 205. MULTILATERAL COOPERATION AGAINST TERRORISTS.

    Section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1202(f)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The records'' and inserting ``(1) Subject 
        to paragraphs (2) and (3), the records'';
            (2) by striking ``United States,'' and all that follows 
        through the period at the end and inserting ``United States.''; 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) In the discretion of the Secretary of State, certified copies 
of such records may be made available to a court which certifies that 
the information contained in such records is needed by the court in the 
interest of the ends of justice in a case pending before the court.
    ``(3)(A) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the Secretary 
of State may provide copies of records of the Department of State and 
of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States (including the 
Department of State's automated visa lookout database) pertaining to 
the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States, 
or information contained in such records, to foreign governments if the 
Secretary determines that it is necessary and appropriate.
    ``(B) Such records and information may be provided on a case-by-
case basis for the purpose of preventing, investigating, or punishing 
acts of terrorism. General access to records and information may be 
provided under an agreement to limit the use of such records and 
information to the purposes described in the preceding sentence.
    ``(C) The Secretary of State shall make any determination under 
this paragraph in consultation with any Federal agency that compiled or 
provided such records or information.
    ``(D) To the extent possible, such records and information shall be 
made available to foreign governments on a reciprocal basis.''.

SEC. 206. REQUIRING SHARING BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OF 
                    CERTAIN CRIMINAL RECORD EXTRACTS WITH OTHER FEDERAL 
                    AGENCIES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE BORDER SECURITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 105 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1105), is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by adding ``and data exchange'' 
        at the end;
            (2) by inserting ``(a) Liaison With Internal Security 
        Officers.--'' after ``105.'';
            (3) by striking ``the internal security of'' and inserting 
        ``the internal and border security of''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Criminal History Record Information.--The Attorney General 
and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide 
the Secretary of State and the Commissioner access to the criminal 
history record information contained in the National Crime Information 
Center's Interstate Identification Index, Wanted Persons File, and to 
any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center 
that may be mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and the 
official to be provided access, for the purpose of determining whether 
a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a criminal history 
record indexed in any such file. Such access shall be provided by means 
of extracts of the records for placement in the Department of State's 
automated visa lookout database or other appropriate database, and 
shall be provided without any fee or charge. The Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide periodic updates of the 
extracts at intervals mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and 
the official provided access. Upon receipt of such updated extracts, 
the receiving official shall make corresponding updates to the 
official's databases and destroy previously provided extracts. Such 
access to any extract shall not be construed to entitle the Secretary 
of State to obtain the full content of the corresponding automated 
criminal history record. To obtain the full content of a criminal 
history record, the Secretary of State shall submit the applicant's 
fingerprints and any appropriate fingerprint processing fee authorized 
by law to the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    ``(c) Reconsideration.--The provision of the extracts described in 
subsection (b) may be reconsidered by the Attorney General and the 
receiving official upon the development and deployment of a more cost-
effective and efficient means of sharing the information.
    ``(d) Regulations.--For purposes of administering this section, the 
Secretary of State shall, prior to receiving access to National Crime 
Information Center data, promulgate final regulations--
            ``(1) to implement procedures for the taking of 
        fingerprints; and
            ``(2) to establish the conditions for the use of the 
        information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
        in order--
                    ``(A) to limit the redissemination of such 
                information;
                    ``(B) to ensure that such information is used 
                solely to determine whether to issue a visa to an 
                individual;
                    ``(C) to ensure the security, confidentiality, and 
                destruction of such information; and
                    ``(D) to protect any privacy rights of individuals 
                who are subjects of such information.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act is amended by amending the item relating to section 
105 to read as follows:

``Sec. 105. Liaison with internal security officers and data 
exchange.''.
    (c) Effective Date and Implementation.--The amendments made by this 
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
shall be fully implemented not later than 18 months after such date.
    (d) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
State, jointly, shall report to the Congress on the implementation of 
the amendments made by this section.
    (e) Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in any other law, 
shall be construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General or 
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide access 
to the criminal history record information contained in the National 
Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index, or to any 
other information maintained by such center, to any Federal agency or 
officer authorized to enforce or administer the immigration laws of the 
United States, for the purpose of such enforcement or administration, 
upon terms that are consistent with sections 212 through 216 of the 
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 
14611 et seq.).

SEC. 207. INADMISSIBILITY OF ALIENS ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERING.

    (a) Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act.--Section 
212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(I) Money laundering.--Any alien--
                            ``(i) who a consular officer or the 
                        Attorney General knows, or has reason to 
                        believe, has engaged, is engaging, or seeks to 
                        enter the United States to engage, in an 
                        offense which is described in section 1956 of 
                        title 18, United States Code (relating to 
                        laundering of monetary instruments); or
                            ``(ii) who a consular officer or the 
                        Attorney General knows is, or has been, a 
                        knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, 
                        or colluder with others in an offense which is 
                        described in such section;
                is inadmissible.''.
    (b) Money Laundering Watchlist.--Not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
develop, implement, and certify to the Congress that there has been 
established a money laundering watchlist, which identifies individuals 
worldwide who are known or suspected of money laundering, which is 
readily accessible to, and shall be checked by, a consular or other 
Federal official prior to the issuance of a visa or admission to the 
United States. The Secretary of State shall develop and continually 
update the watchlist in cooperation with the Attorney General, the 
Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of Central Intelligence.

SEC. 208. PROGRAM TO COLLECT INFORMATION RELATING TO NONIMMIGRANT 
                    FOREIGN STUDENTS AND OTHER EXCHANGE PROGRAM 
                    PARTICIPANTS.

    (a) Changes in Deadlines.--Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``Not later than 4 years 
        after the commencement of the program established under 
        subsection (a),'' and inserting ``Not later than 120 days after 
        the date of the enactment of the PATRIOT Act of 2001,''; and
            (2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``12 months'' and 
        inserting ``120 days''.
    (b) Increased Fee for Certain Students.--Section 641(e)(4)(A) of 
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
(8 U.S.C. 1372(e)(4)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``In the case of an alien who is a national of a country, the 
government of which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes 
of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
international terrorism, the Attorney General may impose on, and 
collect from, the alien a fee that is greater than that imposed on 
other aliens described in paragraph (3).''.
    (c) Data Exchange.--Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
    ``(h) Data Exchange.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Attorney General shall provide to the Secretary of State and the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation the information 
collected under subsection (a)(1).''.

SEC. 209. PROTECTION OF NORTHERN BORDER.

    There are authorized to be appropriated--
            (1) such sums as may be necessary to triple the number of 
        Border Patrol personnel (from the number authorized under 
        current law) in each State along the northern border;
            (2) such sums as may be necessary to triple the number of 
        Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors (from the 
        number authorized under current law) at ports of entry in each 
        State along the northern border; and
            (3) an additional $50,000,000 to the Immigration and 
        Naturalization Service for purposes of enhancing technology for 
        security and enforcement at the northern border, such as 
        infrared technology and technology that enhances coordination 
        between the Governments of Canada and the United States 
        generally and specifically between Canadian police and the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Subtitle B--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of 
                               Terrorism

SEC. 211. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), the Attorney General may provide an alien 
described in subsection (b) with the status of a special immigrant 
under section 101(a)(27) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a(27)), if the 
alien--
            (1) files with the Attorney General a petition under 
        section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) for classification 
        under section 203(b)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)); and
            (2) is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa and 
        is otherwise admissible to the United States for permanent 
        residence, except in determining such admissibility, the 
        grounds for inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) of 
        such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) shall not apply.
    (b) Aliens Described.--
            (1) Principal aliens.--An alien is described in this 
        subsection if--
                    (A) the alien was the beneficiary of--
                            (i) a petition that was filed with the 
                        Attorney General on or before September 11, 
                        2001--
                                    (I) under section 204 of the 
                                Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
                                U.S.C. 1154) to classify the alien as a 
                                family-sponsored immigrant under 
                                section 203(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
                                1153(a)) or as an employment-based 
                                immigrant under section 203(b) of such 
                                Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)); or
                                    (II) under section 214(d) (8 U.S.C. 
                                1184(d)) of such Act to authorize the 
                                issuance of a nonimmigrant visa to the 
                                alien under section 101(a)(15)(K) of 
                                such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)); or
                            (ii) an application for labor certification 
                        under section 212(a)(5)(A) of such Act (8 
                        U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)(A)) that was filed under 
                        regulations of the Secretary of Labor on or 
                        before such date; and
                    (B) such petition or application was revoked or 
                terminated (or otherwise rendered null), either before 
                or after its approval, due to a specified terrorist 
                activity that directly resulted in--
                            (i) the death or disability of the 
                        petitioner, applicant, or alien beneficiary; or
                            (ii) loss of employment due to physical 
                        damage to, or destruction of, the business of 
                        the petitioner or applicant.
            (2) Spouses and children.--
                    (A) In general.--An alien is described in this 
                subsection if--
                            (i) the alien was, on September 10, 2001, 
                        the spouse or child of a principal alien 
                        described in paragraph (1); and
                            (ii) the alien--
                                    (I) is accompanying such principal 
                                alien; or
                                    (II) is following to join such 
                                principal alien not later than 
                                September 11, 2003.
                    (B) Construction.--For purposes of construing the 
                terms ``accompanying'' and ``following to join'' in 
                subparagraph (A)(ii), any death of a principal alien 
                that is described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall be 
                disregarded.
            (3) Grandparents of orphans.--An alien is described in this 
        subsection if the alien is a grandparent of a child, both of 
        whose parents died as a direct result of a specified terrorist 
        activity, if either of such deceased parents was, on September 
        10, 2001, a citizen or national of the United States or an 
        alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United 
        States.
    (c) Priority Date.--Immigrant visas made available under this 
section shall be issued to aliens in the order in which a petition on 
behalf of each such alien is filed with the Attorney General under 
subsection (a)(1), except that if an alien was assigned a priority date 
with respect to a petition described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), the 
alien may maintain that priority date.
    (d) Numerical Limitations.--For purposes of the application of 
sections 201 through 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1151-1153) in any fiscal year, aliens eligible to be provided 
status under this section shall be treated as special immigrants 
described in section 101(a)(27) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) who 
are not described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (K) of such 
section.

SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF FILING OR REENTRY DEADLINES.

    (a) Automatic Extension of Nonimmigrant Status.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 214 of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184), in the case of 
        an alien described in paragraph (2) who was lawfully present in 
        the United States as a nonimmigrant on September 10, 2001, the 
        alien may remain lawfully in the United States in the same 
        nonimmigrant status until the later of--
                    (A) the date such lawful nonimmigrant status 
                otherwise would have terminated if this subsection had 
                not been enacted; or
                    (B) 1 year after the death or onset of disability 
                described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Aliens described.--
                    (A) Principal aliens.--An alien is described in 
                this paragraph if the alien was disabled as a direct 
                result of a specified terrorist activity.
                    (B) Spouses and children.--An alien is described in 
                this paragraph if the alien was, on September 10, 2001, 
                the spouse or child of--
                            (i) a principal alien described in 
                        subparagraph (A); or
                            (ii) an alien who died as a direct result 
                        of a specified terrorist activity.
            (3) Authorized employment.--During the period in which a 
        principal alien or alien spouse is in lawful nonimmigrant 
        status under paragraph (1), the alien shall be provided an 
        ``employment authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate 
        document signifying authorization of employment not later than 
        30 days after the alien requests such authorization.
    (b) New Deadlines for Extension or Change of Nonimmigrant Status.--
            (1) Filing delays.--In the case of an alien who was 
        lawfully present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on 
        September 10, 2001, if the alien was prevented from filing a 
        timely application for an extension or change of nonimmigrant 
        status as a direct result of a specified terrorist activity, 
        the alien's application shall be considered timely filed if it 
        is filed not later than 60 days after it otherwise would have 
        been due.
            (2) Departure delays.--In the case of an alien who was 
        lawfully present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on 
        September 10, 2001, if the alien is unable timely to depart the 
        United States as a direct result of a specified terrorist 
        activity, the alien shall not be considered to have been 
        unlawfully present in the United States during the period 
        beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date of the 
        alien's departure, if such departure occurs on or before 
        November 11, 2001.
            (3) Special rule for aliens unable to return from abroad.--
                    (A) Principal aliens.--In the case of an alien who 
                was in a lawful nonimmigrant status on September 10, 
                2001, but who was not present in the United States on 
                such date, if the alien was prevented from returning to 
                the United States in order to file a timely application 
                for an extension of nonimmigrant status as a direct 
                result of a specified terrorist activity--
                            (i) the alien's application shall be 
                        considered timely filed if it is filed not 
                        later than 60 days after it otherwise would 
                        have been due; and
                            (ii) the alien's lawful nonimmigrant status 
                        shall be considered to continue until the later 
                        of--
                                    (I) the date such status otherwise 
                                would have terminated if this 
                                subparagraph had not been enacted; or
                                    (II) the date that is 60 days after 
                                the date on which the application 
                                described in clause (i) otherwise would 
                                have been due.
                    (B) Spouses and children.--In the case of an alien 
                who is the spouse or child of a principal alien 
                described in subparagraph (A), if the spouse or child 
                was in a lawful nonimmigrant status on September 10, 
                2001, the spouse or child may remain lawfully in the 
                United States in the same nonimmigrant status until the 
                later of--
                            (i) the date such lawful nonimmigrant 
                        status otherwise would have terminated if this 
                        subparagraph had not been enacted; or
                            (ii) the date that is 60 days after the 
                        date on which the application described in 
                        subparagraph (A) otherwise would have been due.
    (c) Diversity Immigrants.--
            (1) Waiver of fiscal year limitation.--Notwithstanding 
        section 203(e)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1153(e)(2)), an immigrant visa number issued to an alien 
        under section 203(c) of such Act for fiscal year 2001 may be 
        used by the alien during the period beginning on October 1, 
        2001, and ending on April 1, 2002, if the alien establishes 
        that the alien was prevented from using it during fiscal year 
        2001 as a direct result of a specified terrorist activity.
            (2) Worldwide level.--In the case of an alien entering the 
        United States as a lawful permanent resident, or adjusting to 
        that status, under paragraph (1), the alien shall be counted as 
        a diversity immigrant for fiscal year 2001 for purposes of 
        section 201(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1151(e)), unless the worldwide level under such section for 
        such year has been exceeded, in which case the alien shall be 
        counted as a diversity immigrant for fiscal year 2002.
            (3) Treatment of family members of certain aliens.--In the 
        case of a principal alien issued an immigrant visa number under 
        section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
        1153(c)) for fiscal year 2001, if such principal alien died as 
        a direct result of a specified terrorist activity, the aliens 
        who were, on September 10, 2001, the spouse and children of 
        such principal alien shall, if not otherwise entitled to an 
        immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under 
        subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 203 of such Act, be 
        entitled to the same status, and the same order of 
        consideration, that would have been provided to such alien 
        spouse or child under section 203(d) of such Act if the 
        principal alien were not deceased.
    (d) Extension of Expiration of Immigrant Visas.--Notwithstanding 
the limitations under section 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(c)), in the case of any immigrant visa issued to an 
alien that expires or expired before December 31, 2001, if the alien 
was unable to effect entry to the United States as a direct result of a 
specified terrorist activity, then the period of validity of the visa 
is extended until December 31, 2001, unless a longer period of validity 
is otherwise provided under this subtitle.
    (e) Grants of Parole Extended.--In the case of any parole granted 
by the Attorney General under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) that expires on a date on or 
after September 11, 2001, if the alien beneficiary of the parole was 
unable to return to the United States prior to the expiration date as a 
direct result of a specified terrorist activity, the parole is deemed 
extended for an additional 90 days.
    (f) Voluntary Departure.--Notwithstanding section 240B of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c), if a period for 
voluntary departure under such section expired during the period 
beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on October 11, 2001, such 
voluntary departure period is deemed extended for an additional 30 
days.

SEC. 213. HUMANITARIAN RELIEF FOR CERTAIN SURVIVING SPOUSES AND 
                    CHILDREN.

    (a) Treatment as Immediate Relatives.--Notwithstanding the second 
sentence of section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)), in the case of an alien who was the 
spouse of a citizen of the United States at the time of the citizen's 
death and was not legally separated from the citizen at the time of the 
citizen's death, if the citizen died as a direct result of a specified 
terrorist activity, the alien (and each child of the alien) shall be 
considered, for purposes of section 201(b) of such Act, to remain an 
immediate relative after the date of the citizen's death, but only if 
the alien files a petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act 
within 2 years after such date and only until the date the alien 
remarries.
    (b) Spouses, Children, Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Lawful 
Permanent Resident Aliens.--
            (1) In general.--Any spouse, child, or unmarried son or 
        daughter of an alien described in paragraph (3) who is included 
        in a petition for classification as a family-sponsored 
        immigrant under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)) that was filed by such 
        alien before September 11, 2001, shall be considered (if the 
        spouse, child, son, or daughter has not been admitted or 
        approved for lawful permanent residence by such date) a valid 
        petitioner for preference status under such section with the 
        same priority date as that assigned prior to the death 
        described in paragraph (3)(A). No new petition shall be 
        required to be filed. Such spouse, child, son, or daughter may 
        be eligible for deferred action and work authorization.
            (2) Self-petitions.--Any spouse, child, or unmarried son or 
        daughter of an alien described in paragraph (3) who is not a 
        beneficiary of a petition for classification as a family-
        sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(2) of the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act may file a petition for such classification 
        with the Attorney General, if the spouse, child, son, or 
        daughter was present in the United States on September 11, 
        2001. Such spouse, child, son, or daughter may be eligible for 
        deferred action and work authorization.
            (3) Aliens described.--An alien is described in this 
        paragraph if the alien--
                    (A) died as a direct result of a specified 
                terrorist activity; and
                    (B) on the day of such death, was lawfully admitted 
                for permanent residence in the United States.
    (c) Applications for Adjustment of Status by Surviving Spouses and 
Children of Employment-Based Immigrants.--
            (1) In general.--Any alien who was, on September 10, 2001, 
        the spouse or child of an alien described in paragraph (2), and 
        who applied for adjustment of status prior to the death 
        described in paragraph (2)(A), may have such application 
        adjudicated as if such death had not occurred.
            (2) Aliens described.--An alien is described in this 
        paragraph if the alien--
                    (A) died as a direct result of a specified 
                terrorist activity; and
                    (B) on the day before such death, was--
                            (i) an alien lawfully admitted for 
                        permanent residence in the United States by 
                        reason of having been allotted a visa under 
                        section 203(b) of the Immigration and 
                        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)); or
                            (ii) an applicant for adjustment of status 
                        to that of an alien described in clause (i), 
                        and admissible to the United States for 
                        permanent residence.
    (d) Waiver of Public Charge Grounds.--In determining the 
admissibility of any alien accorded an immigration benefit under this 
section, the grounds for inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) shall not 
apply.

SEC. 214. ``AGE-OUT'' PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN.

    For purposes of the administration of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), in the case of an alien--
            (1) whose 21st birthday occurs in September 2001, and who 
        is the beneficiary of a petition or application filed under 
        such Act on or before September 11, 2001, the alien shall be 
        considered to be a child for 90 days after the alien's 21st 
        birthday for purposes of adjudicating such petition or 
        application; and
            (2) whose 21st birthday occurs after September 2001, and 
        who is the beneficiary of a petition or application filed under 
        such Act on or before September 11, 2001, the alien shall be 
        considered to be a child for 45 days after the alien's 21st 
        birthday for purposes of adjudicating such petition or 
        application.

SEC. 215. TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF.

    The Attorney General, for humanitarian purposes or to ensure family 
unity, may provide temporary administrative relief to any alien who--
            (1) was lawfully present in the United States on September 
        10, 2001;
            (2) was on such date the spouse, parent, or child of an 
        individual who died or was disabled as a direct result of a 
        specified terrorist activity; and
            (3) is not otherwise entitled to relief under any other 
        provision of this subtitle.

SEC. 216. EVIDENCE OF DEATH, DISABILITY, OR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish appropriate 
standards for evidence demonstrating, for purposes of this subtitle, 
that any of the following occurred as a direct result of a specified 
terrorist activity:
            (1) Death.
            (2) Disability.
            (3) Loss of employment due to physical damage to, or 
        destruction of, a business.
    (b) Waiver of Regulations.--The Attorney General shall carry out 
subsection (a) as expeditiously as possible. The Attorney General is 
not required to promulgate regulations prior to implementing this 
subtitle.

SEC. 217. NO BENEFITS TO TERRORISTS OR FAMILY MEMBERS OF TERRORISTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, nothing in 
this subtitle shall be construed to provide any benefit or relief to--
            (1) any individual culpable for a specified terrorist 
        activity; or
            (2) any family member of any individual described in 
        paragraph (1).

SEC. 218. DEFINITIONS.

    (a) Application of Immigration and Nationality Act Provisions.--
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle, the 
definitions used in the Immigration and Nationality Act (excluding the 
definitions applicable exclusively to title III of such Act) shall 
apply in the administration of this subtitle.
    (b) Specified Terrorist Activity.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
the term ``specified terrorist activity'' means any terrorist activity 
conducted against the Government or the people of the United States on 
September 11, 2001.

                      TITLE III--CRIMINAL JUSTICE

                  Subtitle A--Substantive Criminal Law

SEC. 301. STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR PROSECUTING TERRORISM OFFENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 3286 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3286. Terrorism offenses

    ``(a) An indictment may be found or an information instituted at 
any time without limitation for any Federal terrorism offense or any of 
the following offenses:
            ``(1) A violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to 
        violate, section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or 
        aircraft facilities), 37(a)(1) (relating to violence at 
        international airports), 175 (relating to biological weapons), 
        229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to 
        congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and 
        kidnaping), 791 (relating to harboring terrorists), 831 
        (relating to nuclear materials), 844(f) or (i) when it relates 
        to bombing (relating to arson and bombing of certain property), 
        1114(1) (relating to protection of officers and employees of 
        the United States), 1116, if the offense involves murder 
        (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, 
        official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 
        (relating to hostage taking), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to 
        Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and 
        kidnaping), 2332(a)(1) (relating to certain homicides and other 
        violence against United States nationals occurring outside of 
        the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass 
        destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending 
        national boundaries) of this title.
            ``(2) Section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2284);
            ``(3) Section 601 (relating to disclosure of identities of 
        covert agents) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
        421).
            ``(4) Section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 
        49.
    ``(b) An indictment may be found or an information instituted 
within 15 years after the offense was committed for any of the 
following offenses:
            ``(1) Section 175b (relating to biological weapons), 842(m) 
        or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 930(c) if it involves 
        murder (relating to possessing a dangerous weapon in a Federal 
        facility), 956 (relating to conspiracy to injure property of a 
        foreign government), 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) 
        (relating to protection of computers), 1362 (relating to 
        destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1366 
        (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1992 (relating 
        to trainwrecking), 2152 (relating to injury of fortifications, 
        harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating to 
        destruction of national defense materials, premises, or 
        utilities), 2156 (relating to production of defective national 
        defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to 
        violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to 
        violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2339A (relating to 
        providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to 
        providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 
        2340A (relating to torture).
            ``(2) Any of the following provisions of title 49: the 
        second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a 
        flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3), 
        (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment 
        of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 
        if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 
        60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or 
        hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending the 
item relating to section 3286 to read as follows:

``3286. Terrorism offenses.''.
    (c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the 
date of enactment of this section.

SEC. 302. ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM CRIMES.

    Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
after subsection (d) the following:
    ``(e) Authorized Terms of Imprisonment for Terrorism Crimes.--A 
person convicted of any Federal terrorism offense may be sentenced to 
imprisonment for any term of years or for life, notwithstanding any 
maximum term of imprisonment specified in the law describing the 
offense. The authorization of imprisonment under this subsection is 
supplementary to, and does not limit, the availability of any other 
penalty authorized by the law describing the offense, including the 
death penalty, and does not limit the applicability of any mandatory 
minimum term of imprisonment, including any mandatory life term, 
provided by the law describing the offense.''.

SEC. 303. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES.

    Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after section 2332b the following:

``Sec. 2332c. Attempts and conspiracies

    ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), any person who attempts 
or conspires to commit any Federal terrorism offense shall be subject 
to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the 
commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
    ``(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), any person who attempts 
or conspires to commit any offense described in section 25(2) shall be 
subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the 
commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
    ``(c) A death penalty may not be imposed by operation of this 
section.''; and
            (2) in the table of sections at the beginning of the 
        chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 2332b 
        the following new item:

``2332c. Attempts and conspiracies.''.

SEC. 304. TERRORISM CRIMES AS RICO PREDICATES.

    Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or (F)'' and inserting ``(F)''; and
            (2) by striking ``financial gain.'' and inserting 
        ``financial gain, or (G) any act that is a Federal terrorism 
        offense or is indictable under any of the following provisions 
        of law: section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or 
        aircraft facilities), 37(a)(1) (relating to violence at 
        international airports), 175 (relating to biological weapons), 
        229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to 
        congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and 
        kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) 
        (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f) or (i) when it 
        involves a bombing (relating to arson and bombing of certain 
        property), 930(c) when it involves an attack on a Federal 
        facility, 1114 when it involves murder (relating to protection 
        of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 when it 
        involves murder (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign 
        officials, official guests, or internationally protected 
        persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to 
        destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1366 
        (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) 
        (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination 
        and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to trainwrecking), 2280 
        (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 
        (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332a 
        (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b 
        (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national 
        boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing material support to 
        terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to 
        terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of 
        this title; section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2284); or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) or 
        60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or 
        hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49;''.

SEC. 305. BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

    Chapter 10 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 175--
                    (A) in subsection (b)--
                            (i) by striking, ``section, the'' and 
                        inserting ``section--
            ``(1) the'';
                            (ii) by striking ``does not include'' and 
                        inserting ``includes'';
                            (iii) by inserting ``other than'' after 
                        ``system for''; and
                            (iv) by striking ``purposes.'' and 
                        inserting ``purposes, and
            ``(2) the terms biological agent and toxin do not encompass 
        any biological agent or toxin that is in its naturally-
        occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has not 
        been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its 
        natural source.'';
                    (B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection 
                (c); and
                    (C) by inserting after subsection (a) the 
                following:
    ``(b) Additional Offense.--Whoever knowingly possesses any 
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a quantity 
that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably justified by a 
prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purpose, shall be fined 
under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'';
            (2) by inserting after section 175a the following:

``Sec. 175b. Possession by restricted persons

    ``(a) No restricted person described in subsection (b) shall ship 
or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or 
affecting commerce, any biological agent or toxin, or receive any 
biological agent or toxin that has been shipped or transported in 
interstate or foreign commerce, if the biological agent or toxin is 
listed as a select agent in subsection (j) of section 72.6 of title 42, 
Code of Federal Regulations, pursuant to section 511(d)(1) of the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
132), and is not exempted under subsection (h) of such section 72.6, or 
Appendix A of part 72 of such title; except that the term select agent 
does not include any such biological agent or toxin that is in its 
naturally-occurring environment, if the biological agent or toxin has 
not been cultivated, collected, or otherwise extracted from its natural 
source.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `restricted person' means 
an individual who--
            ``(1) is under indictment for a crime punishable by 
        imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
            ``(2) has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable 
        by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
            ``(3) is a fugitive from justice;
            ``(4) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance (as 
        defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
        U.S.C. 802));
            ``(5) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United 
        States;
            ``(6) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has 
        been committed to any mental institution; or
            ``(7) is an alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted 
        for permanent residence) who is a national of a country as to 
        which the Secretary of State, pursuant to section 6(j) of the 
        Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), 
        section 620A of chapter 1 of part M of the Foreign Assistance 
        Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371), or section 40(d) of chapter 3 of 
        the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)), has made a 
        determination that remains in effect that such country has 
        repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
        terrorism.
    ``(c) As used in this section, the term `alien' has the same 
meaning as that term is given in section 1010(a)(3) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)), and the term `lawfully' 
admitted for permanent residence has the same meaning as that term is 
given in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).
    ``(d) Whoever knowingly violates this section shall be fined under 
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, but the 
prohibition contained in this section shall not apply with respect to 
any duly authorized governmental activity under title V of the National 
Security Act of 1947.''; and
            (3) in the table of sections in the beginning of such 
        chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 175a 
        the following:

``175b. Possession by restricted persons.''.

SEC. 306. SUPPORT OF TERRORISM THROUGH EXPERT ADVICE OR ASSISTANCE.

    Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by striking ``a violation'' and all that 
                follows through ``49'' and inserting ``any Federal 
                terrorism offense or any offense described in section 
                25(2)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``violation,'' and inserting 
                ``offense,''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``expert advice or 
        assistance,'' after ``training,''.

SEC. 307. PROHIBITION AGAINST HARBORING.

    (a) Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
section 792 the following:

``Sec. 791. Prohibition against harboring

    ``Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows has 
committed, or is about to commit, an offense described in section 25(2) 
or this title shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
than ten years or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction 
over any violation of this section or any conspiracy or attempt to 
violate this section. A violation of this section or of such a 
conspiracy or attempt may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial 
district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other 
Federal judicial district as provided by law.''.
    (b) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 37 of title 
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the item 
relating to section 792 the following:

``791.  Prohibition against harboring.''.

SEC. 308. POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF TERRORISTS.

    Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) Supervised Release Terms for Terrorism Offenses.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized terms of supervised 
release for any Federal terrorism offense are any term of years or 
life.''.

SEC. 309. DEFINITION.

    (a) Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by adding after section 24 a new section as follows:

``Sec. 25. Federal terrorism offense defined

    ``As used in this title, the term `Federal terrorism offense' means 
an offense that is--
            ``(1) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of 
        government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against 
        government conduct; and
            ``(2) is a violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to 
        violate- section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or 
        aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international 
        airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and 
        territorial jurisdiction), 175, 175b (relating to biological 
        weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) 
        (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court 
        assassination and kidnaping), 791 (relating to harboring 
        terrorists), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) 
        (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f) or (i) (relating to 
        arson and bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956 (relating 
        to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government), 
        1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) (relating to 
        protection of computers), 1114 (relating to protection of 
        officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to 
        murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, 
        or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to 
        hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government 
        property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of 
        communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to 
        injury to buildings or property within special maritime and 
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366 (relating 
        to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to 
        Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and 
        kidnaping), 1992, 2152 (relating to injury of fortifications, 
        harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating to 
        destruction of national defense materials, premises, or 
        utilities), 2156 (relating to production of defective national 
        defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to 
        violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to 
        violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to 
        certain homicides and other violence against United States 
        nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a 
        (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b 
        (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national 
        boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing material support to 
        terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to 
        terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture);
            ``(3) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
        2284);
            ``(4) section 601 (relating to disclosure of identities of 
        covert agents) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
        421); or
            ``(5) any of the following provisions of title 49: section 
        46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of 
        section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a 
        dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3), (relating to explosive 
        or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means 
        of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or 
        attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) (relating 
        to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline 
        facility) of title 49.''; and
            (2) in the table of sections in the beginning of such 
        chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section 24 the 
        following:

``25. Federal terrorism offense defined.''.
    (b) Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``is a violation'' and all that follows through 
``title 49'' and inserting ``is a Federal terrorism offense''.
    (c) Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
                    (A) by inserting ``(or to have the effect)'' after 
                ``intended''; and
                    (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``by assassination 
                or kidnapping'' and inserting ``(or any function 
                thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or 
                kidnapping (or threat thereof)'';
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
            (3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
            (4) by inserting the following paragraph (4):
            ``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
                    ``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are 
                a violation of the criminal laws of the United States 
                or of any State; and
                    ``(B) appear to be intended (or to have the 
                effect)--
                            ``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian 
                        population;
                            ``(ii) to influence the policy of a 
                        government by intimidation or coercion; or
                            ``(iii) to affect the conduct of a 
                        government (or any function thereof) by mass 
                        destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or 
                        threat thereof).''.

SEC. 310. CIVIL DAMAGES.

    Section 2707(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$10,000''.

                     Subtitle B--Criminal Procedure

SEC. 351. SINGLE-JURISDICTION SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TERRORISM.

    Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended by 
inserting after ``executed'' the following: ``and (3) in an 
investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as 
defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code), by a Federal 
magistrate judge in any district court of the United States (including 
a magistrate judge of such court), or any United States Court of 
Appeals, having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated, for a 
search of property or for a person within or outside the district''.

SEC. 352. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS.

    Section 3(d)(1) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 
(42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the a new 
        subparagraph as follows:
            ``(G) Any Federal terrorism offense (as defined in section 
        25 of title 18, United States Code).''.

SEC. 353. GRAND JURY MATTERS.

    Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is 
amended--
            (1) by adding after clause (iv) the following:
                            ``(v) when permitted by a court at the 
                        request of an attorney for the government, upon 
                        a showing that the matters pertain to 
                        international or domestic terrorism (as defined 
                        in section 2331 of title 18, United States 
                        Code) or national security, to any Federal law 
                        enforcement, intelligence, national security, 
                        national defense, protective, immigration 
                        personnel, or to the President or Vice 
                        President of the United States, for the 
                        performance of official duties.'';
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii); and
            (3) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
        inserting ``; or''.

SEC. 354. EXTRATERRITORIALITY.

    Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the heading for section 2338, by striking 
        ``Exclusive'';
            (2) in section 2338, by inserting ``There is 
        extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over any Federal 
        terrorism offense and any offense under this chapter, in 
        addition to any extraterritorial jurisdiction that may exist 
        under the law defining the offense, if the person committing 
        the offense or the victim of the offense is a national of the 
        United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act) or if the offense is directed at the security 
        or interests of the United States.'' before ``The district 
        courts''; and
            (3) in the table of sections at the beginning of such 
        chapter, by striking ``Exclusive'' in the item relating to 
        section 2338.

SEC. 355. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED AT UNITED STATES 
                    FACILITIES ABROAD.

    Section 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
            ``(9)(A) With respect to offenses committed by or against a 
        United States national, as defined in section 1203(c) of this 
        title--
                    ``(i) the premises of United States diplomatic, 
                consular, military, or other United States Government 
                missions or entities in foreign states, including the 
                buildings, parts of buildings, and the land appurtenant 
                or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used 
                for purposes of those missions or entities; and
                    ``(ii) residences in foreign states and the land 
                appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of 
                ownership, used for purposes of those missions or 
                entities or used by United States personnel assigned to 
                those missions or entities, except that this paragraph 
                does not supercede any treaty or international 
                agreement in force on the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph.
            ``(B) This paragraph does not apply with respect to an 
        offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a).''.

SEC. 356. SPECIAL AGENT AUTHORITIES.

    (a) General Authority of Special Agents.--Section 37(a) of the 
State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) in the course of performing the functions set forth 
        in paragraphs (1) and (3), obtain and execute search and arrest 
        warrants, as well as obtain and serve subpoenas and summonses, 
        issued under the authority of the United States;'';
            (2) in paragraph (3)(F) by inserting ``or President-elect'' 
        after ``President''; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
            ``(5) in the course of performing the functions set forth 
        in paragraphs (1) and (3), make arrests without warrant for any 
        offense against the United States committed in the presence of 
        the special agent, or for any felony cognizable under the laws 
        of the United States if the special agent has reasonable 
        grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed 
        or is committing such felony.''.
    (b) Crimes.--Section 37 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 2709) is amended by 
inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsections:
    ``(d) Interference With Agents.--Whoever knowingly and willfully 
obstructs, resists, or interferes with a Federal law enforcement agent 
engaged in the performance of the protective functions authorized by 
this section shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 
one year, or both.
    ``(e) Persons Under Protection of Special Agents.--Whoever engages 
in any conduct--
            ``(1) directed against an individual entitled to protection 
        under this section, and
            ``(2) which would constitute a violation of section 112 or 
        878 of title 18, United States Code, if such individual were a 
        foreign official, an official guest, or an internationally 
        protected person, shall be subject to the same penalties as are 
        provided for such conduct directed against an individual 
        subject to protection under such section of title 18.''.

                   TITLE IV--FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

SEC. 401. LAUNDERING THE PROCEEDS OF TERRORISM.

    Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting ``or 2339B'' after ``2339A''.

SEC. 402. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

    Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
        ``A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal 
        judicial district in which the underlying offense was 
        committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as 
        provided by law.''; and
            (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or other financial 
        securities'' and inserting ``or monetary instruments or 
        financial securities''.

SEC. 403. ASSETS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:
            ``(G) All assets, foreign or domestic--
                    ``(i) of any person, entity, or organization 
                engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic 
                terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 
                section 2331) against the United States, citizens or 
                residents of the United States, or their property, and 
                all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a 
                source of influence over any such entity or 
                organization;
                    ``(ii) acquired or maintained by any person for the 
                purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or 
                concealing an act of domestic terrorism or 
                international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) 
                against the United States, citizens or residents of the 
                United States, or their property; or
                    ``(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or 
                intended to be used to commit any act of domestic 
                terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 
                section 2331) against the United States, citizens or 
                residents of the United States, or their property.''.

SEC. 404. TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION RELATING TO PROVISION OF MATERIAL 
                    SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.

    No provision of title IX of Public Law 106-387 shall be understood 
to limit or otherwise affect section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United 
States Code.

SEC. 405. DISCLOSURE OF TAX INFORMATION IN TERRORISM AND NATIONAL 
                    SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS.

    (a) Disclosure Without a Request of Information Relating to 
Terrorist Activities, Etc.--Paragraph (3) of section 6103(i) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure of return 
information to apprise appropriate officials of criminal activities or 
emergency circumstances) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Terrorist activities, etc.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                        paragraph (6), the Secretary may disclose in 
                        writing return information (other than taxpayer 
                        return information) that may be related to a 
                        terrorist incident, threat, or activity to the 
                        extent necessary to apprise the head of the 
                        appropriate Federal law enforcement agency 
                        responsible for investigating or responding to 
                        such terrorist incident, threat, or activity. 
                        The head of the agency may disclose such return 
                        information to officers and employees of such 
                        agency to the extent necessary to investigate 
                        or respond to such terrorist incident, threat, 
                        or activity.
                            ``(ii) Disclosure to the department of 
                        justice.--Returns and taxpayer return 
                        information may also be disclosed to the 
                        Attorney General under clause (i) to the extent 
                        necessary for, and solely for use in preparing, 
                        an application under paragraph (7)(D).
                            ``(iii) Taxpayer identity.--For purposes of 
                        this subparagraph, a taxpayer's identity shall 
                        not be treated as taxpayer return information.
                            ``(iv) Termination.--No disclosure may be 
                        made under this subparagraph after December 31, 
                        2003.''.
    (b) Disclosure Upon Request of Information Relating to Terrorist 
Activities, Etc.--Subsection (i) of section 6103 of such Code (relating 
to disclosure to Federal officers or employees for administration of 
Federal laws not relating to tax administration) is amended by 
redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and by inserting after 
paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Disclosure upon request of information relating to 
        terrorist activities, etc.--
                    ``(A) Disclosure to law enforcement agencies.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                        paragraph (6), upon receipt by the Secretary of 
                        a written request which meets the requirements 
                        of clause (iii), the Secretary may disclose 
                        return information (other than taxpayer return 
                        information) to officers and employees of any 
                        Federal law enforcement agency who are 
                        personally and directly engaged in the response 
                        to or investigation of terrorist incidents, 
                        threats, or activities.
                            ``(ii) Disclosure to state and local law 
                        enforcement agencies.--The head of any Federal 
                        law enforcement agency may disclose return 
                        information obtained under clause (i) to 
                        officers and employees of any State or local 
                        law enforcement agency but only if such agency 
                        is part of a team with the Federal law 
                        enforcement agency in such response or 
                        investigation and such information is disclosed 
                        only to officers and employees who are 
                        personally and directly engaged in such 
                        response or investigation.
                            ``(iii) Requirements.--A request meets the 
                        requirements of this clause if--
                                    ``(I) the request is made by the 
                                head of any Federal law enforcement 
                                agency (or his delegate) involved in 
                                the response to or investigation of 
                                terrorist incidents, threats, or 
                                activities, and
                                    ``(II) the request sets forth the 
                                specific reason or reasons why such 
                                disclosure may be relevant to a 
                                terrorist incident, threat, or 
                                activity.
                            ``(iv) Limitation on use of information.--
                        Information disclosed under this subparagraph 
                        shall be solely for the use of the officers and 
                        employees to whom such information is disclosed 
                        in such response or investigation.
                    ``(B) Disclosure to intelligence agencies.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                        paragraph (6), upon receipt by the Secretary of 
                        a written request which meets the requirements 
                        of clause (ii), the Secretary may disclose 
                        return information (other than taxpayer return 
                        information) to those officers and employees of 
                        the Department of Justice, the Department of 
                        the Treasury, and other Federal intelligence 
                        agencies who are personally and directly 
                        engaged in the collection or analysis of 
                        intelligence and counterintelligence 
                        information or investigation concerning 
                        terrorists and terrorist organizations and 
                        activities. For purposes of the preceding 
                        sentence, the information disclosed under the 
                        preceding sentence shall be solely for the use 
                        of such officers and employees in such 
                        investigation, collection, or analysis.
                            ``(ii) Requirements.--A request meets the 
                        requirements of this subparagraph if the 
                        request--
                                    ``(I) is made by an individual 
                                described in clause (iii), and
                                    ``(II) sets forth the specific 
                                reason or reasons why such disclosure 
                                may be relevant to a terrorist 
                                incident, threat, or activity.
                            ``(iii) Requesting individuals.--An 
                        individual described in this subparagraph is an 
                        individual--
                                    ``(I) who is an officer or employee 
                                of the Department of Justice or the 
                                Department of the Treasury who is 
                                appointed by the President with the 
                                advice and consent of the Senate or who 
                                is the Director of the United States 
                                Secret Service, and
                                    ``(II) who is responsible for the 
                                collection and analysis of intelligence 
                                and counterintelligence information 
                                concerning terrorists and terrorist 
                                organizations and activities.
                            ``(iv) Taxpayer identity.--For purposes of 
                        this subparagraph, a taxpayer's identity shall 
                        not be treated as taxpayer return information.
                    ``(C) Disclosure under ex parte orders.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                        paragraph (6), any return or return information 
                        with respect to any specified taxable period or 
                        periods shall, pursuant to and upon the grant 
                        of an ex parte order by a Federal district 
                        court judge or magistrate under clause (ii), be 
                        open (but only to the extent necessary as 
                        provided in such order) to inspection by, or 
                        disclosure to, officers and employees of any 
                        Federal law enforcement agency or Federal 
                        intelligence agency who are personally and 
                        directly engaged in any investigation, response 
                        to, or analysis of intelligence and 
                        counterintelligence information concerning any 
                        terrorist activity or threats. Return or return 
                        information opened pursuant to the preceding 
                        sentence shall be solely for the use of such 
                        officers and employees in the investigation, 
                        response, or analysis, and in any judicial, 
                        administrative, or grand jury proceedings, 
                        pertaining to any such terrorist activity or 
                        threat.
                            ``(ii) Application for order.--The Attorney 
                        General, the Deputy Attorney General, the 
                        Associate Attorney General, any Assistant 
                        Attorney General, or any United States attorney 
                        may authorize an application to a Federal 
                        district court judge or magistrate for the 
                        order referred to in clause (i). Upon such 
                        application, such judge or magistrate may grant 
                        such order if he determines on the basis of the 
                        facts submitted by the applicant that--
                                    ``(I) there is reasonable cause to 
                                believe, based upon information 
                                believed to be reliable, that the 
                                taxpayer whose return or return 
                                information is to be disclosed may be 
                                connected to a terrorist activity or 
                                threat,
                                    ``(II) there is reasonable cause to 
                                believe that the return or return 
                                information may be relevant to a matter 
                                relating to such terrorist activity or 
                                threat, and
                                    ``(III) the return or return 
                                information is sought exclusively for 
                                use in a Federal investigation, 
                                analysis, or proceeding concerning 
                                terrorist activity, terrorist threats, 
                                or terrorist organizations.
                    ``(D) Special rule for ex parte disclosure by the 
                irs.--
                            ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                        paragraph (6), the Secretary may authorize an 
                        application to a Federal district court judge 
                        or magistrate for the order referred to in 
                        subparagraph (C)(i). Upon such application, 
                        such judge or magistrate may grant such order 
                        if he determines on the basis of the facts 
                        submitted by the applicant that the 
                        requirements of subclauses (I) and (II) of 
                        subparagraph (C)(ii) are met.
                            ``(ii) Limitation on use of information.--
                        Information disclosed under clause (i)--
                                    ``(I) may be disclosed only to the 
                                extent necessary to apprise the head of 
                                the appropriate Federal law enforcement 
                                agency responsible for investigating or 
                                responding to a terrorist incident, 
                                threat, or activity, and
                                    ``(II) shall be solely for use in a 
                                Federal investigation, analysis, or 
                                proceeding concerning terrorist 
                                activity, terrorist threats, or 
                                terrorist organizations.
                        The head of such Federal agency may disclose 
                        such information to officers and employees of 
                        such agency to the extent necessary to 
                        investigate or respond to such terrorist 
                        incident, threat, or activity.
                    ``(E) Termination.--No disclosure may be made under 
                this paragraph after December 31, 2003.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 6103(a)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting 
        ``any local law enforcement agency receiving information under 
        subsection (i)(7)(A),'' after ``State,''.
            (2) The heading of section 6103(i)(3) of such Code is 
        amended by inserting ``or terrorist'' after ``criminal''.
            (3) Paragraph (4) of section 6103(i) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or (7)(C)'' 
                after ``paragraph (1)'', and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``or (3)(A)'' 
                and inserting ``(3)(A) or (C), or (7)''.
            (4) Paragraph (6) of section 6103(i) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking ``(3)(A)'' and inserting ``(3)(A) 
                or (C)'', and
                    (B) by striking ``or (7)'' and inserting ``(7), or 
                (8)''.
            (5) Section 6103(p)(3) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(7)(A)(ii)'' 
                and inserting ``(8)(A)(ii)'', and
                    (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking 
                ``(i)(3)(B)(i)'' and inserting ``(i)(3)(B)(i) or 
                (7)(A)(ii)''.
            (6) Section 6103(p)(4) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by striking ``or (5),'' the first place 
                        it appears and inserting ``(5), or (7),'', and
                            (ii) by striking ``(i)(3)(B)(i)'' and 
                        inserting ``(i)(3)(B)(i) or (7)(A)(ii)'', and
                    (B) in subparagraph (F)(ii) by striking ``or (5),'' 
                the first place it appears and inserting ``(5) or 
                (7),''.
            (7) Section 6103(p)(6)(B)(i) of such Code is amended by 
        striking ``(i)(7)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``(i)(8)(A)(ii)''.
            (8) Section 7213(a)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``(i)(3)(B)(i),'' and inserting ``(i)(3)(B)(i) or 
        (7)(A)(ii),''.
    (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to disclosures made on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 406. EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

    Section 1029 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the United 
States, engages in any act that, if committed within the jurisdiction 
of the United States, would constitute an offense under subsection (a) 
or (b) of this section, shall be subject to the fines, penalties, 
imprisonment, and forfeiture provided in this title if--
            ``(1) the offense involves an access device issued, owned, 
        managed, or controlled by a financial institution, account 
        issuer, credit card system member, or other entity within the 
        jurisdiction of the United States; and
            ``(2) the person transports, delivers, conveys, transfers 
        to or through, or otherwise stores, secrets, or holds within 
        the jurisdiction of the United States, any article used to 
        assist in the commission of the offense or the proceeds of such 
        offense or property derived therefrom.''.

                   TITLE V--EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 501. OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS.

    (a) In connection with the airplane hijackings and terrorist acts 
(including, without limitation, any related search, rescue, relief, 
assistance, or other similar activities) that occurred on September 11, 
2001, in the United States, amounts transferred to the Crime Victims 
Fund from the Executive Office of the President or funds appropriated 
to the President shall not be subject to any limitation on obligations 
from amounts deposited or available in the Fund.
    (b) Section 112 of title I of section 101(b) of division A of 
Public Law 105-277 and section 108(a) of the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2000 (H.R. 3421 of the 106th Congress, as enacted into law by 
section 1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113; Appendix A; 113 Stat. 1501A-
20) are amended--
            (1) after ``that Office'', each place it occurs, by 
        inserting ``(including, notwithstanding any contrary provision 
        of law (unless the same should expressly refer to this 
        section), any organization that administers any program 
        established in title I of Public Law 90-351)''; and
            (2) by inserting ``functions, including any'' after 
        ``all''.
    (c) Section 1404B(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
10603b) is amended by inserting ``, to victim service organizations, to 
public agencies (including Federal, State, or local governments), and 
to non-governmental organizations that provide assistance to victims of 
crime,'' after ``programs''.
    (d) Section 1 of Public Law 107-37 is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(containing identification of all 
        eligible payees of benefits under section 1201)'' before ``by 
        a'';
            (2) by inserting ``producing permanent and total 
        disability'' after ``suffered a catastrophic injury''; and
            (3) by striking ``1201(a)'' and inserting ``1201''.

SEC. 502. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO PAY REWARDS.

    (a) In General.--(1) Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking sections 3059 through 3059B and inserting the following:

``Sec. 3059. Rewards and appropriations therefor

    ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Attorney General 
may pay rewards in accordance with procedures and regulations 
established or issued by the Attorney General.
    ``(b) Limitations.-- The following limitations apply with respect 
to awards under subsection (a):
            ``(1) No such reward, other than in connection with a 
        terrorism offense or as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
        shall exceed $2,000,000.
            ``(2) No such reward of $250,000 or more may be made or 
        offered without the personal approval of either the Attorney 
        General or the President.
            ``(3) The Attorney General shall give written notice to the 
        Chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on 
        Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives not later than 30 days after the approval of a 
        reward under paragraph (2);
            ``(4) Any executive agency or military department (as 
        defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 5) may 
        provide the Attorney General with funds for the payment of 
        rewards.
            ``(5) Neither the failure to make or authorize such a 
        reward nor the amount of any such reward made or authorized 
        shall be subject to judicial review.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `reward' means a 
payment pursuant to public advertisements for assistance to the 
Department of Justice.''.
    (2) The items relating to sections 3059A through 3059B in the table 
of sections at the beginning of chapter 203 of title 18, United States 
Code, are repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.----
            (1) Section 3075 of title 18, United States Code, and that 
        portion of section 3072 of title 18, United States Code, that 
        follows the first sentence, are repealed.
            (2) Public Law 101-647 is amended--
                    (A) in section 2565 (12 U.S.C. 4205)--
                            (i) by striking all the matter after 
                        ``section 2561,'' in subsection (c)(1) and 
                        inserting ``the Attorney General may, in the 
                        Attorney General's discretion, pay a reward to 
                        the declaring.''; and
                            (ii) by striking subsection (e); and
                    (B) by striking section 2569 (12 U.S.C. 4209).

SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.

    The matter under the headings ``Immigration And Naturalization 
Service: Salaries and Expenses, Enforcement And Border Affairs'' and 
``Immigration And Naturalization Service: Salaries and Expenses, 
Citizenship And Benefits, Immigration Support And Program Direction'' 
in the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into 
law by Appendix B (H.R. 5548) of Public Law 106-553 (114 Stat. 2762A-58 
to 2762A-59)) is amended by striking each place it occurs: ``Provided'' 
and all that follows through ``That none of the funds available to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be available to pay any 
employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of $30,000 during the 
calendar year beginning January 1, 2001:''.

SEC. 504. DEPARTMENT OF STATE REWARD AUTHORITY.

    (a) Changes in Reward Authority.--Section 36 of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (5) and inserting ``, including by dismantling an 
                organization in whole or significant part; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                paragraph:
            ``(6) the identification or location of an individual who 
        holds a leadership position in a terrorist organization.'';
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) 
        and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2); and
            (3) by amending subsection (e)(1) to read as follows:
            ``(1) Amount of award.--
                    ``(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no 
                reward paid under this section may exceed $10,000,000.
                    ``(B) The Secretary of State may authorize the 
                payment of an award not to exceed $25,000,000 if the 
                Secretary determines that payment of an award exceeding 
                the amount under subparagraph (A) is important to the 
                national interest of the United States.''.
    (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Rewards Relating to the September 
11, 2001 Attack.--It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of 
State should use the authority of section 36 of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended by subsection (a), to offer a 
reward of $25,000,000 for Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the 
September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

SEC. 505. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR DEA POLICE TRAINING IN SOUTH AND 
                    CENTRAL ASIA.

    In addition to amounts otherwise available to carry out section 481 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291), there is 
authorized to be appropriated to the President not less than $5,000,000 
for fiscal year 2002 for regional antidrug training in the Republic of 
Turkey by the Drug Enforcement Administration for police, as well as 
increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central 
Asia region.

SEC. 506. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1201(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796) is amended by 
striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to any death or disability occurring on or after January 1, 2001.

                         TITLE VI--DAM SECURITY

SEC. 601. SECURITY OF RECLAMATION DAMS, FACILITIES, AND RESOURCES.

    Section 2805(a) of the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 
1992 (16 U.S.C. 460l-33(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(3) Any person who violates any such regulation which is issued 
pursuant to this Act shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, 
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both. Any person charged with a 
violation of such regulation may be tried and sentenced by any United 
States magistrate judge designated for that purpose by the court by 
which such judge was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the 
same conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401 of 
title 18, United States Code.
    ``(4) The Secretary may--
            ``(A) authorize law enforcement personnel from the 
        Department of the Interior to act as law enforcement officers 
        to maintain law and order and protect persons and property 
        within a Reclamation project or on Reclamation lands;
            ``(B) authorize law enforcement personnel of any other 
        Federal agency that has law enforcement authority, with the 
        exception of the Department of Defense, or law enforcement 
        personnel of any State or local government, including Indian 
        tribes, when deemed economical and in the public interest, and 
        with the concurrence of that agency or that State or local 
        government, to act as law enforcement officers within a 
        Reclamation project or on Reclamation lands with such 
        enforcement powers as may be so assigned them by the Secretary 
        to carry out the regulations promulgated under paragraph (2);
            ``(C) cooperate with any State or local government, 
        including Indian tribes, in the enforcement of the laws or 
        ordinances of that State or local government; and
            ``(D) provide reimbursement to a State or local government, 
        including Indian tribes, for expenditures incurred in 
        connection with activities under subparagraph (B).
    ``(5) Officers or employees designated or authorized by the 
Secretary under paragraph (4) are authorized to--
            ``(A) carry firearms within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands and make arrests without warrants for any 
        offense against the United States committed in their presence, 
        or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United 
        States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the 
        person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a 
        felony, and if such arrests occur within a Reclamation project 
        or on Reclamation lands or the person to be arrested is fleeing 
        therefrom to avoid arrest;
            ``(B) execute within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands any warrant or other process issued by a 
        court or officer of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement 
        of the provisions of any Federal law or regulation issued 
        pursuant to law for an offense committed within a Reclamation 
        project or on Reclamation lands; and
            ``(C) conduct investigations within a Reclamation project 
        or on Reclamation lands of offenses against the United States 
        committed within a Reclamation project or on Reclamation lands, 
        if the Federal law enforcement agency having investigative 
        jurisdiction over the offense committed declines to investigate 
        the offense or concurs with such investigation.
    ``(6)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a law 
enforcement officer of any State or local government, including Indian 
tribes, designated to act as a law enforcement officer under paragraph 
(4) shall not be deemed a Federal employee and shall not be subject to 
the provisions of law relating to Federal employment, including those 
relating to hours of work, rates of compensation, employment 
discrimination, leave, unemployment compensation, and Federal benefits.
    ``(B) For purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, 
popularly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law enforcement 
officer of any State or local government, including Indian tribes, 
shall, when acting as a designated law enforcement officer under 
paragraph (4) and while under Federal supervision and control, and only 
when carrying out Federal law enforcement responsibilities, be 
considered a Federal employee.
    ``(C) For purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United 
States Code, relating to compensation to Federal employees for work 
injuries, a law enforcement officer of any State or local government, 
including Indian tribes, shall, when acting as a designated law 
enforcement officer under paragraph (4) and while under Federal 
supervision and control, and only when carrying out Federal law 
enforcement responsibilities, be deemed a civil service employee of the 
United States within the meaning of the term `employee' as defined in 
section 8101 of title 5, and the provisions of that subchapter shall 
apply. Benefits under this subchapter shall be reduced by the amount of 
any entitlement to State or local workers' compensation benefits 
arising out of the same injury or death.
    ``(7) Nothing in paragraphs (3) through (9) shall be construed or 
applied to limit or restrict the investigative jurisdiction of any 
Federal law enforcement agency, or to affect any existing right of a 
State or local government, including Indian tribes, to exercise civil 
and criminal jurisdiction within a Reclamation project or on 
Reclamation lands.
    ``(8) For the purposes of this subsection, the term `law 
enforcement personnel' means employees of a Federal, State, or local 
government agency, including an Indian tribal agency, who have 
successfully completed law enforcement training approved by the 
Secretary and are authorized to carry firearms, make arrests, and 
execute service of process to enforce criminal laws of their employing 
jurisdiction.
    ``(9) The law enforcement authorities provided for in this 
subsection may be exercised only pursuant to rules and regulations 
promulgated by the Secretary and approved by the Attorney General.''.

                        TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 701. EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSLATORS BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
                    INVESTIGATION.

    (a) Authority.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
is authorized to expedite the employment of personnel as translators to 
support counterterrorism investigations and operations without regard 
to applicable Federal personnel requirements and limitations.
    (b) Security Requirements.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation shall establish such security requirements as are 
necessary for the personnel employed as translators.
    (c) Report.--The Attorney General shall report to the Committees on 
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate on--
            (1) the number of translators employed by the FBI and other 
        components of the Department of Justice;
            (2) any legal or practical impediments to using translators 
        employed by other Federal State, or local agencies, on a full, 
        part-time, or shared basis; and
            (3) the needs of the FBI for specific translation services 
        in certain languages, and recommendations for meeting those 
        needs.

SEC. 702. REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

    (a) Appointment of Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil 
Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.--The Inspector 
General of the Department of Justice shall appoint a Deputy Inspector 
General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
``Deputy'').
    (b) Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Review.--The Deputy shall--
            (1) review information alleging abuses of civil rights, 
        civil liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by government 
        employees and officials including employees and officials of 
        the Department of Justice;
            (2) make public through the Internet, radio, television, 
        and newspaper advertisements information on the 
        responsibilities and functions of, and how to contact, the 
        Deputy; and
            (3) submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
        of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
        Senate on a semi-annual basis a report on the implementation of 
        this subsection and detailing any abuses described in paragraph 
        (1), including a description of the use of funds appropriations 
        used to carry out this subsection.
    (c) Inspector General Oversight Plan for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall 
submit to the Congress a plan for oversight of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. The Inspector General shall consider the following 
activities for inclusion in such plan:
            (1) Financial systems.--Auditing the financial systems, 
        information technology systems, and computer security systems 
        of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
            (2) Programs and processes.--Auditing and evaluating 
        programs and processes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        to identify systemic weaknesses or implementation failures and 
        to recommend corrective action.
            (3) Internal affairs offices.--Reviewing the activities of 
        internal affairs offices of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation, including the Inspections Division and the 
        Office of Professional Responsibility.
            (4) Personnel.--Investigating allegations of serious 
        misconduct by personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
            (5) Other programs and operations.--Reviewing matters 
        relating to any other program or and operation of the Federal 
        Bureau of Investigation that the Inspector General determines 
        requires review.
            (6) Resources.--Identifying resources needed by the 
        Inspector General to implement such plan.
    (d) Review of Investigative Tools.--Not later than August 31, 2003, 
the Deputy shall review the implementation, use, and operation 
(including the impact on civil rights and liberties) of the law 
enforcement and intelligence authorities contained in title I of this 
Act and provide a report to the President and Congress.

SEC. 703. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON USE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIER SCANNING 
                    SYSTEM WITH ACCESS TO THE FBI INTEGRATED AUTOMATED 
                    FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AT OVERSEAS 
                    CONSULAR POSTS AND POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE UNITED 
                    STATES.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Transportation, shall conduct a 
study on the feasibility of utilizing a biometric identifier 
(fingerprint) scanning system, with access to the database of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
Identification System, at consular offices abroad and at points of 
entry into the United States to enhance the ability of State Department 
and immigration officials to identify aliens who may be wanted in 
connection with criminal or terrorist investigations in the United 
States or abroad prior to the issuance of visas or entry into the 
United States.
    (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report 
summarizing the findings of the study authorized under subsection (a) 
to the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

SEC. 704. STUDY OF ACCESS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation shall study and report to Congress on the 
feasibility of providing to airlines access via computer to the names 
of passengers who are suspected of terrorist activity by Federal 
officials.
    (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
fiscal years 2002 though 2003 not more than $250,000 to carry out 
subsection (a).

SEC. 705. ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ANTI-TERRORISM JUDGMENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism Act''.
    (b) Definition.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1603(b) of title 28, United States 
        Code, is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (3) by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and'';
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) 
                as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively (and 
                by moving the margins 2 em spaces to the right);
                    (C) by striking ``(b)'' through ``entity--'' and 
                inserting the following:
    ``(b) An `agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means--
            ``(1) any entity--''; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) for purposes of sections 1605(a)(7) and 1610(a)(7) 
        and (f), any entity as defined under subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
        of paragraph (1), and subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall 
        not apply.''.
            (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 1391(f)(3) 
        of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 
        ``1603(b)'' and inserting ``1603(b)(1)''.
    (c) Enforcement of Judgments.--Section 1610(f) of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(including 
                any agency or instrumentality or such state)'' and 
                inserting ``(including any agency or instrumentality of 
                such state), except to the extent of any punitive 
                damages awarded''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys due from 
or payable by the United States (including any agency or 
instrumentality thereof) to any state against which a judgment is 
pending under section 1605(a)(7) shall be subject to attachment and 
execution with respect to that judgment, in like manner and to the same 
extent as if the United States were a private person, except to the 
extent of any punitive damages awarded.''; and
            (2) by striking paragraph (3) and adding the following:
    ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), upon determining on an asset-
by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the national security 
interest, the President may waive this subsection in connection with 
(and prior to the enforcement of) any judicial order directing 
attachment in aid of execution or execution against any property 
subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations.
    ``(B) A waiver under this paragraph shall not apply to--
            ``(i) if property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
        Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
        Relations has been used for any nondiplomatic purpose 
        (including use as rental property), the proceeds of such use; 
        or
            ``(ii) if any asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
        Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
        Relations is sold or otherwise transferred for value to a third 
        party, the proceeds of such sale or transfer.
    ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `property subject to the Vienna 
Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
Relations' and the term `asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations' 
mean any property or asset, respectively, the attachment in aid of 
execution or execution of which would result in a violation of an 
obligation of the United States under the Vienna Convention on 
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as 
the case may be.
    ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, all assets of any agency or 
instrumentality of a foreign state shall be treated as assets of that 
foreign state.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to any claim for which a foreign state is not immune under 
section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, arising before, on, 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (e) Paygo Adjustment.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget shall not make any estimates of changes in direct spending 
outlays and receipts under section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)) for any fiscal 
year resulting from the enactment of this section.

         TITLE VIII--PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER QUALITY ASSURANCE

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Private Security Officer Quality 
Assurance Act of 2001''.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) employment of private security officers in the United 
        States is growing rapidly;
            (2) the private security industry provides numerous 
        opportunities for entry-level job applicants, including 
        individuals suffering from unemployment due to economic 
        conditions or dislocations;
            (3) sworn law enforcement officers provide significant 
        services to the citizens of the United States in its public 
        areas, and are only supplemented by private security officers 
        who provide prevention and reporting services in support of, 
        but not in place of, regular sworn police;
            (4) given the growth of large private shopping malls, and 
        the consequent reduction in the number of public shopping 
        streets, the American public is more likely to have contact 
        with private security personnel in the course of a day than 
        with sworn law enforcement officers;
            (5) regardless of the differences in their duties, skill, 
        and responsibilities, the public has difficulty in discerning 
        the difference between sworn law enforcement officers and 
        private security personnel; and
            (6) the American public demands the employment of 
        qualified, well-trained private security personnel as an 
        adjunct, but not a replacement for sworn law enforcement 
        officers.

SEC. 803. BACKGROUND CHECKS.

    (a) In General.--An association of employers of private security 
officers, designated for the purpose of this section by the Attorney 
General, may submit fingerprints or other methods of positive 
identification approved by the Attorney General, to the Attorney 
General on behalf of any applicant for a State license or certificate 
of registration as a private security officer or employer of private 
security officers. In response to such a submission, the Attorney 
General may, to the extent provided by State law conforming to the 
requirements of the second paragraph under the heading ``Federal Bureau 
of Investigation'' and the subheading ``Salaries and Expenses'' in 
title II of Public Law 92-544 (86 Stat. 1115), exchange, for licensing 
and employment purposes, identification and criminal history records 
with the State governmental agencies to which such applicant has 
applied.
    (b) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe such 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section, including 
measures relating to the security, confidentiality, accuracy, use, and 
dissemination of information and audits and recordkeeping and the 
imposition of fees necessary for the recovery of costs.
    (c) Report.--The Attorney General shall report to the Senate and 
House Committees on the Judiciary 2 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act on the number of inquiries made by the association of 
employers under this section and their disposition.

SEC. 804. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that States should participate in the 
background check system established under section 803.

SEC. 805. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this title--
            (1) the term ``employee'' includes an applicant for 
        employment;
            (2) the term ``employer'' means any person that--
                    (A) employs one or more private security officers; 
                or
                    (B) provides, as an independent contractor, for 
                consideration, the services of one or more private 
                security officers (possibly including oneself);
            (3) the term ``private security officer''--
                    (A) means--
                            (i) an individual who performs security 
                        services, full or part time, for consideration 
                        as an independent contractor or an employee, 
                        whether armed or unarmed and in uniform or 
                        plain clothes whose primary duty is to perform 
                        security services, or
                            (ii) an individual who is an employee of an 
                        electronic security system company who is 
                        engaged in one or more of the following 
                        activities in the State: burglar alarm 
                        technician, fire alarm technician, closed 
                        circuit television technician, access control 
                        technician, or security system monitor; but
                    (B) does not include--
                            (i) sworn police officers who have law 
                        enforcement powers in the State,
                            (ii) attorneys, accountants, and other 
                        professionals who are otherwise licensed in the 
                        State,
                            (iii) employees whose duties are primarily 
                        internal audit or credit functions,
                            (iv) persons whose duties may incidentally 
                        include the reporting or apprehension of 
                        shoplifters or trespassers, or
                            (v) an individual on active duty in the 
                        military service;
            (4) the term ``certificate of registration'' means a 
        license, permit, certificate, registration card, or other 
        formal written permission from the State for the person to 
        engage in providing security services;
            (5) the term ``security services'' means the performance of 
        one or more of the following:
                    (A) the observation or reporting of intrusion, 
                larceny, vandalism, fire or trespass;
                    (B) the deterrence of theft or misappropriation of 
                any goods, money, or other item of value;
                    (C) the observation or reporting of any unlawful 
                activity;
                    (D) the protection of individuals or property, 
                including proprietary information, from harm or 
                misappropriation;
                    (E) the control of access to premises being 
                protected;
                    (F) the secure movement of prisoners;
                    (G) the maintenance of order and safety at 
                athletic, entertainment, or other public activities;
                    (H) the provision of canine services for protecting 
                premises or for the detection of any unlawful device or 
                substance; and
                    (I) the transportation of money or other valuables 
                by armored vehicle; and
            (6) the term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
        District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
        United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2975, the ``Provide Appropriate Tools Required to 
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001,'' 
provides enhanced investigative tools and improves information 
sharing for the law enforcement and intelligence communities to 
combat terrorism and terrorist-related crimes. The enhanced law 
enforcement tools and information sharing-provisions will 
assist in the prevention of future terrorist activities and the 
preliminary acts and crimes which further such activities. To 
protect the delicate balance between law enforcement and civil 
liberties, the bill provides additional government reporting 
requirements, disciplinary actions for abuse, and civil 
penalties.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by 
terrorist. After the attacks the country became aware of the 
need to better defend and protect the nation, liberty and 
citizens within our own borders. There are several key 
legislative changes needed to mobilize the nation against 
terrorism and to assist law enforcement and the intelligence 
community to determine who carried out the horrific acts of 
Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and to bring our criminal 
investigative capabilities to prevent future attacks.

                                Hearings

    On September 24, 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary held 
one hearing on the Administration's proposed legislation the 
``Mobilization Against Terrorism Act of 2001,'' which formed 
the basis of H.R. 2975, the ``Provide Appropriate Tools 
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 
2001.'' Testimony was received from four witnesses, 
representing the Department of Justice. The witnesses were: The 
Honorable John Aschroft, Attorney General; Honorable Michael 
Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division; 
Honorable Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General; and 
Honorable Viet Dinh, Assistant Attorney General for Legal 
Policy.

                        Committee Consideration

    On October 3, 2001, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2975, as amended, by a 
36-0 vote, a quorum being present.

                         Votes of the Committee

    (1) An amendment was offered by Mr. Boucher (for himself, 
Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Cannon) to insert language at the end of 
title I that states ``Nothing in this Act shall impose any 
additional technical obligation or requirement on a provider of 
wire or electronic communication service or other person to 
furnish facilities, services or technical assistance.'' The 
amendment passed by voice vote.
    (2) An amendment was offered by Mr. Frank to provide 
increased civil liability for unlawful disclosures of 
information obtained by wire or electronic interception, access 
to electronically-stored communications, pen register and trap 
trace, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
(FISA) intelligence gathering and to provide administrative 
discipline for intentional violations and to provide procedures 
for actions against the United States. The amendment passed by 
voice vote.
    (3) An amendment was offered by Mr. Berman to sections 103 
and 154, clarifying that the term ``foreign intelligence 
information'' is the same term that is defined under section 
1801(e) of title 50, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
The amendment passed by voice vote.
    (4) Amendments were offered en bloc by Mr. Sensenbrenner 
(for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Berman) to, among 
other things, clarify that upon request, those being served 
with the generic pen/trap order created under this section 
shall receive written or electronic certification that the 
assistance provided related to the order; to authorize five 
million dollars to be appropriated for antidrug training for 
South and Central Asia police; to establish a feasibility study 
on the use of a biometric identifier scanning system with 
access to the FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
Identification system at overseas consular posts and points of 
entry to the United States; to clarify that a court of 
competent jurisdiction for nationwide search warrants must have 
jurisdiction over the offense being investigated; and to modify 
the current designation process by allowing either the 
Secretary of State or the Attorney General to determine 
designation of a foreign terrorist organization and if they 
fail to agree, the President shall make such determination. The 
amendment passed by voice vote.
    (5) An amendment was offered by Mr. Hyde to make 
inadmissible any alien who the government knows or has reason 
to believe is a money launderer. The Secretary of State shall 
create a watchlist, to be checked before the issuance of a visa 
or admission of an alien into the U.S., which identifies 
persons who are known or suspected of money laundering. The 
amendment passed by voice vote.
    (6) An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler (for himself and 
Ms. Jackson Lee) to provide that the U.S. government can only 
seek information from the home government about an asylum 
applicant who is a suspected terrorist if the U.S. government 
does not disclose the fact that the alien has applied for 
asylum nor any information sufficient to give rise to an 
inference that the applicant has applied for asylum. Mr. Bachus 
offered an amendment to the amendment to strike the base 
provision--section 205(b)--from the bill. Both amendments 
passed by voice vote.
    (7) Amendments were offered en bloc by Mr. Sensenbrenner 
(for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Scott, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Issa, Mr. 
Keller, Mr. Barr, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Nadler and Ms. Jackson Lee). 
Mr. Scott offered an amendment to exclude military and military 
personnel from the provisions regarding extraterritorial 
jurisdiction in the bill who are already covered under the 
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Mr. Weiner 
and Mr. Issa offered amendments to increase the amount paid to 
public safety officers disabled or killed in the line of duty 
from $100,000 to $250,000. An amendment offered by Mr. Keller 
would authorize $250,000 to require the FBI to study the 
feasibility of providing the airlines access to information 
regarding suspected terrorists. One of the amendments, offered 
by Mr. Barr, provided that the Attorney General and the Deputy 
Attorney General may, with no further delegation, certify an 
alien as an terrorist for purposes of mandatory detention. The 
bill had provided this authority to the Attorney General and 
the INS Commissioner. An amendment offered by Mr. Barr would 
allow an association of employers of private security officers 
to submit fingerprints or other methods of identification to 
the Attorney General for purposes of State licensing or 
certification. Another of the amendments, offered by Mr. Cannon 
(for himself and Mr. Issa), amends current law to revise the 
definition of ``agency or instrumentality of a foreign state'' 
for purposes of provisions regarding exceptions to: 1) the 
jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state where money damages 
are sought against the state for personal injury or death that 
was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, 
aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material 
support or resources for such an act; and 2) the immunity from 
attachment or execution where the judgment relates to a claim 
for which the foreign state is not immune. Another of the 
amendments, to be offered by Mr. Nadler (for himself and Ms. 
Jackson Lee), amends the section of the bill providing for 
mandatory detention of alien terrorists by providing that if an 
alien detained pursuant to the section was ordered removed as a 
terrorist (or on the other grounds allowing certification) and 
had not been removed within 90 days and was unlikely to be 
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, the alien could 
be detained for additional periods of up to 6 months if the 
Attorney General demonstrated that release would not protect 
the national security of the United States or ensure the 
public's safety. The en bloc amendment passed by voice vote.
    (8) An amendment was offered by Ms. Lofgren to sunset most 
of the changes made to current immigration law by title II(a) 
of the bill. The amendment failed by voice vote.
    (9) An amendment was offered by Mr. Weiner to amend the 
foreign student tracking system created by the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by 
advancing the date by which the system must be fully 
operational, providing that students who are nationals of 
countries that have repeatedly provided support for acts of 
international terrorism may be assessed a higher fee than other 
foreign students, and providing that the Attorney General shall 
provide to the Secretary of State and the Director of the FBI 
the information collected by the system. The amendment passed 
by a rollcall vote of 25-8.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Bryant......................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Barr........................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Graham......................................................
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................                              X
Mr. Frank.......................................................                              X
Mr. Berman......................................................                              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................                              X
Mr. Watt........................................................                              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................                              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................              X
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             25               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (10) An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to provide 
funds for enhanced technology for security and enforcement at 
the northern border. The amendment passed by voice vote.
    (11) An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to narrow the 
list of persons restricted from possessing biological agents. 
Mr. Scott's amendment changed definition of persons restricted 
due to the indictment for a crime, to those persons indicted 
for a Federal terrorism offense. The amendment failed by voice 
vote.
    (12) An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to tighten the 
intent requirement to require actual intent instead of apparent 
intent for the definition of ``domestic terrorism.'' The 
amendment failed by voice vote.
    (13) Vote on final passage was adopted by a rollcall vote 
of 36-0.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................              X
Mr. Gekas.......................................................              X
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith (Texas)...............................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................              X
Mr. Bryant......................................................              X
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X
Mr. Barr........................................................              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X
Mr. Graham......................................................              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Mr. Issa........................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................              X
Mr. Flake.......................................................              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................              X
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................              X
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................              X
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             36               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The bill is intended to: (1) improve the government's 
ability to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist 
organizations for terrorist and related criminal activities by 
enhancing and clarifying law enforcement investigative tools 
and by improving information sharing between law enforcement 
and government agencies that have responsibilities related to 
protecting the Nation against terrorism; and (2) to protect the 
balance between civil liberties and law enforcement by 
requiring new reporting obligations and administrative 
oversight.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures. This bill does provide new 
budgetary authority.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2975, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 10, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2975, the Provide 
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 
(PATRIOT) Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz and Lanette Walker (for Federal costs), who can be 
reached at 226-2860, Victoria Heid Hall (for the impact on 
state, local, and tribal governments), who can be reached at 
225-3220, and Paige Piper/Bach (for the impact on the private 
sector), who can be reached at 226-2940.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2975--Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct 
        Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001.

                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 2975 would expand the powers of Federal law 
enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist 
acts, establish new Federal crimes, and increase penalties for 
acts of terrorism. The bill would allow certain victims of 
Iranian terrorism who have won judgments against Iran in U.S. 
court to collect monetary damages from the U.S. government. 
H.R. 2975 also would increase the payments to families of 
public safety officers who have died as a result of injuries 
incurred in the line of duty. Finally, the bill would authorize 
funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Department 
of the Interior (DOI) to undertake activities to combat 
terrorism.
    CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 
spending for payments to victims of terrorism and death 
benefits for public safety officers by a total of $107 million 
in fiscal year 2002 and by about $20 million in each year 
thereafter. Because this legislation would affect direct 
spending and receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. 
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 2975 would cost about $1 billion over 
the 2002-2006 period, mostly for additional INS personnel.
    Two provisions of H.R. 2975 would impose intergovernmental 
and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates, however, that the cost of 
those mandates would fall well below the thresholds established 
in UMRA ($56 million for intergovernmental mandates and $113 
million for private-sector mandates in 2001, adjusted annually 
for inflation).
    The remaining provisions of the bill are either excluded 
from UMRA because they are necessary for the national security 
or contain no mandates.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2975 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation falls within 
budget functions 150 (international affairs), 300 (natural 
resources and environment), and 750 (administration of 
justice).

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be 
enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2002, that the 
necessary amounts will be appropriated for each year, and that 
spending will follow the historical rates for the authorized 
activities.
    Implementing H.R. 2975 would increase direct spending, 
discretionary spending, and governmental receipts. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 2975 would increase direct 
spending for payments to victims of terrorism and death 
benefits for public safety officers by a total of $107 million 
in fiscal year 2002 and by about $20 million in each year 
thereafter. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, 
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2975 would cost about $1 
billion over the 2002-2006 period, mostly for additional INS 
personnel. The impact on receipts is not likely to be 
significant in any year.

                      Direct Spending and Receipts

    Payments to Victims of Terrorism. H.R. 2975 would enable 
victims of Iranian terrorism who have won judgments against 
Iran in U.S. courts to collect monetary damages from the 
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Trust Fund. CBO estimates that 
enacting this provision would increase direct spending by $33 
million in 2002.
    The FMS Trust Fund holds nearly $400 million in funds 
previously paid by Iran for the purchase of military equipment 
that was not delivered. The disposition of those funds is 
currently before the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, an 
international body established to settle disputes between the 
two nations. Section 705 of the bill would allow victims who 
have received judgments for monetary damages by a court to 
obtain amounts from the FMS Trust Fund to satisfy those 
judgments. Based on information from the State Department, CBO 
estimates that victims have been awarded damages of about $33 
million and we expect these victims would seek compensation 
from the fund in 2002. In addition, CBO expects that other 
judgments could be awarded in the future. However, we cannot 
estimate the likelihood or the amount of any such additional 
judgments.
    CBO cannot determine whether the payment of these claims to 
terrorist victims would reduce, eliminate, or leave unaltered 
any liability of the United States to Iran, which is yet to be 
determined by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. Thus, it is 
possible that some or all of the funds we estimate will be paid 
to victims or terrorism under this bill could be offset by a 
reduction in payments that would be made from the FMS Trust 
Fund to Iran under current law. CBO, however, has no basis for 
predicting the future decisions of the Iran-U.S. Claims 
Tribunal, nor the response of the governments to such 
decisions.
    Public Safety Officers Death Benefits. H.R. 2975 would 
increase the Federal payment to each family of a public safety 
officer who has died in the line of duty from $155,000 to 
$250,000. This provision would apply retroactively beginning on 
January 1, 2001. Under current law, the families of public 
safety officers who have died as a result of injuries sustained 
in the line of duty are eligible for a payment of about 
$155,000. H.R. 2975 would increase this payment to $250,000. 
CBO estimates that the families of over 750 officers in fiscal 
year 2002 and about 200 officers in each year thereafter would 
be eligible for this payment. The 2002 estimate includes about 
400 deaths related to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 
2001, about 150 other deaths in 2001, and about 200 deaths in 
2002--based on the number of deaths of public safety officers 
in the line of duty experienced in recent years.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2975 would increase 
payments for death benefits by $74 million in 2002 and about 
$20 million in each year thereafter. For the families of 
officers killed during the attacks on September 11, it is 
possible that these payments would result in a reduction in 
other Federal compensation payments that may be made under 
Public Law 107-42, the Airline Transportation Safety and System 
Stabilization Act, which offers compensation to victims of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks. However, the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) has not yet issued guidelines on how this 
compensation will be provided. In particular, DOJ has not 
determined which payments to victims of the attacks will result 
in a reduction in Federal compensation payments.
    Additional Fines. Enacting H.R. 2975 would establish civil 
and criminal fines for new crimes that would be established by 
the bill. Based on information from DOJ, CBO estimates that any 
additional collections would not be significant because of the 
small number of individuals that are likely to be subject to 
such fines. Civil fines are classified as governmental receipts 
(revenues). Criminal fines are recorded as receipts and 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and spent without further 
appropriation action.

                   Spending Subject to Appropriation

    H.R. 2975 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
necessary to triple the number of INS border patrol personnel 
and INS inspectors stationed along the northern border of the 
United States. According to the INS, there are currently 855 
border patrol agents and inspectors stationed along the 
northern border of the United States. H.R. 2975 would require 
the agency to triple that force, resulting in an additional 
1,710 agents and inspectors, plus an estimated 200 support 
personnel. CBO expects that implementing such a major increase 
in personnel would be complete by 2004. Based on information 
from INS, CBO estimates that this would cost $102 million in 
fiscal year 2002 and about $900 million over the 2002-2006 
period, subject to appropriation of the necessary sums.
    Title II also would authorize the appropriation of $50 
million for INS to improve the technology and equipment used to 
monitor the northern border.
    Title VI of the bill would authorize DOI to contract with 
other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and tribal 
governments to provide law enforcement personnel to protect 
Bureau of Reclamation facilities and lands and enforce Federal 
laws. This title also would authorize DOI to reimburse those 
entities for their services. Based on information from the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management, CBO 
estimates that implementing title VI would cost $52 million 
over the 2002-2006 period.
    H.R. 2975 would authorize the appropriation of $5 million 
for fiscal year 2002 for the DEA to provide training to police 
and other drug control assistance in south and central Asia.
    H.R. 2975 would require the DOJ and the Federal judiciary 
to prepare a total of about a half-dozen reports. Based on 
information from the affected agencies, CBO estimates that the 
reports would cost about $1 million in fiscal year 2002 and 
less than $500,000 annually thereafter.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
specifies pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending and receipts. These procedures would apply to 
H.R. 2975 because it would affect both direct spending and 
receipts, as shown in the following table. (The estimated 
changes in receipts are less than $500,00 each year.) For 
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the 
effects in the budget year and the succeeding 4 years are 
counted.

              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

    Two provisions of H.R. 2975 would impose intergovernmental 
and private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA by increasing 
reporting requirements for state courts and prohibiting certain 
individuals from handling specific biological agents.
    Section 112 would require judges to report to the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts on all 
applications for court orders that would require a provider of 
remote computing service to disclose the contents of electronic 
communication. CBO estimates that the cost to comply with the 
additional reporting requirement would be well below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates 
($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Section 305 would prohibit certain people, as defined in 
the bill, from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving 
specified biological agents or toxins in interstate or foreign 
commerce. According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, the number of entities affected by this restriction 
would be limited. Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost to 
comply with the mandate would fall well below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($113 
million in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the application of that 
act, any legislative provisions that are necessary for the 
national security. CBO has determined that the remaining 
provisions of H.R. 2975 either fit within that exclusion or 
contain no mandates.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz, Lanette Walker, Julie Middleton 
    (226-2860), and Joseph C. Whitehill (226-2840)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid 
    Hall (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

Section 1. Short Title
    This Act may be cited as the ``Provide Appropriate Tools 
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 
2001.''
Section 2. Table of Contents
Section 3. Construction; Severability

                    Title I--Intelligence Gathering

                  Subtitle A--Electronic Surveillance

Section 101. Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen 
        Registers and Trap and Trace Devices
    Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3121(b), law enforcement may obtain 
authorization from a court, upon certification that the 
information to be obtained is relevant to a pending criminal 
investigation, to install and use a ``pen register'' device 
that identifies the telephone numbers dialed or pulsed from 
(outgoing calls) or a ``trap and trace'' device that identifies 
the telephone numbers to a particular telephone (incoming 
calls). These court authorizations do not permit capturing or 
recording of the content of any such communication under the 
terms of the court order.
    Currently, the government must apply for a new pen/trap 
order in every jurisdiction where the target telephone is 
located. This can cause serious delays that could be 
devastating to an investigation, particularly where additional 
criminal or terrorist acts are planned.
    Section 101 does not change the requirement under 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3121 that law enforcement seek a court order to install 
and use pen registers/trap and trace devices. It does not 
change the law requiring that the attorney for the government 
certify to the court that the information sought is relevant to 
an ongoing criminal investigation.
    This section does change the current law requiring the 
government to obtain the order in the jurisdiction where the 
telephone (or its equivalent) is located. This section 
authorizes the court with jurisdiction over the offense of the 
investigation to issue the order, thus streamlining an 
investigation and eliminating the need to intrude upon the 
resources of courts and prosecutors with no connection to the 
investigation.
    Under the bill, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3123(a) would authorize 
courts to issue a single pen register/trap and trace order that 
could be executed in multiple jurisdictions anywhere in the 
United States. The bill divides the existing 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3123(a) into two paragraphs. The new subsection (a)(1) 
applies to Federal investigations and provides that the order 
may be issued to any provider of communication services within 
the United States whose assistance is appropriate to the 
effectuation of the order. Subsection (a)(2) applies to State 
law enforcement and does not change the current authority 
granted to State officials.
    This section updates the language of the statute to clarify 
that the pen/register authority applies to modern communication 
technologies. Current statutory references to the target 
``line,'' for example, are revised to encompass a ``line or 
other facility.'' Such a facility includes: a cellular 
telephone number; a specific cellular telephone identified by 
its electronic serial number (ESN); an Internet user account or 
e-mail address; or an Internet Protocol (IP) address, port 
number, or similar computer network address or range of 
addresses. In addition, because the statute takes into account 
a wide variety of such facilities, section 3123(b)(1)(C) allows 
applicants for pen register or trap and trace orders to submit 
a description of the communications to be traced using any of 
these or other identifiers.
    Moreover, the section clarifies that orders for the 
installation of pen register and trap and trace devices may 
obtain any non-content information--``dialing, routing, 
addressing, and signaling information''--utilized in the 
processing or transmitting of wire and electronic 
communications.\1\ Just as today, such an order could not be 
used to intercept the contents of communications protected by 
the wiretap statute. The amendments reinforce the statutorily 
prescribed line between a communication's contents and non-
content information, a line identical to the constitutional 
distinction drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. 
Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 741-43 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Thus, for example, non-content information contained in the 
``options field'' of a network packet header constitutes ``signaling'' 
information and is properly obtained by an authorized pen register or 
trap and trace device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, for example, an order under the statute could not 
authorize the collection of email subject lines, which are 
clearly content. Further, an order could not be used to collect 
information other than ``dialing, routing, addressing, and 
signaling'' information, such as the the portion of a URL 
(Uniform Resource Locator) specifying Web search terms or the 
name of a requested file or article.
    This concept, that the information properly obtained by 
using a pen register or trap and trace device is non-content 
information, applies across the board to all communications 
media, and to actual connections as well as attempted 
connections (such as busy signals and similar signals in the 
telephone context and packets that merely request a telnet 
connection in the Internet context).
    Further, because the pen register or trap and trace 
``device'' is often incapable of being physically ``attached'' 
to the target facility due to the nature of modern 
communication technology, section 101 makes two other related 
changes. First, in recognition of the fact that such functions 
are commonly performed today by software instead of physical 
mechanisms, the section allows the pen register or trap and 
trace device to be ``attached or applied'' to the target 
facility. Likewise, the definitions of ``pen register'' and 
``trap and trace device'' in section 3127 are revised to 
include an intangible ``process'' (such as a software routine) 
which collects the same information as a physical device.
    Section 101(c) amends the definition section to include a 
new nexus standard under Sec. 3127(2)(A) to provide that the 
issuing court must have jurisdiction over the crime being 
investigated rather than the communication line upon which the 
device is to be installed. This section is also amended to 
account for the new technologies relating to the different 
modes of communication.
    Section 101(d) amends section 3124(d) to ensure that 
communication providers continue to be covered under that 
section. Technology providers are concerned that the single 
order provisions of section 101 of the bill eliminates the 
protection of Sec. 3124(d) of title 18 that provides that ``no 
cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of 
a wire or electronic communication service, its officers, 
employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing 
information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the 
terms of a court order.'' Once there is a nation-wide order it 
will not specify the provider and thus, the providers believe 
they could become liable upon compliance with the order. The 
intent of the current statutory language is to protect 
providers who comply with court orders, which direct them to 
assist law enforcement in obtaining the non-content 
information. The bill removes the phrase ``the terms of'' so 
that the phrase reads ``in accordance with a court order.'' 
This will keep the requirement of a court order but protect the 
providers even when that order does not specify the provider.
    Current practice includes compliance with pen registers and 
trap and trace orders by the service provider using its systems 
and technologies to provide the government all non-content 
information ordered by the order without the installation of an 
additional device by the government to capture that order. It 
is intended that these alternative compliance procedures should 
continue when the provider is willing and technologically able 
to comply with the order by these means in an efficient, 
complete and timely manner.
    Additionally, this section clarifies that upon request, 
those being served with the generic pen/trap order created 
under this section shall receive written or electronic 
certification from the serving officer or official stating that 
the assistance provided is related to the order.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 102. Seizure of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant to Warrants
    This section requires a court to issue an order authorizing 
law enforcement to seize voice mail messages pursuant to a 
search warrant upon a showing of probable cause. The Committee 
recognizes that voice mail is a stored electronic communication 
and should be treated accordingly. Thus, this section 
harmonizes all criminal provisions dealing with obtained stored 
electronic communication--requiring a warrant issued by a judge 
after establishing probable cause.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 103. Authorized Disclosure
    This provision will allow law enforcement to share ``title 
III'' (Wiretap Statute) information with specified government 
agencies to further intelligence or national security 
investigations. Under current law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2517(1) 
allows any investigative or law enforcement officer who obtains 
information under the Wiretap Statute to disclose the 
information to the extent that the information assists a 
criminal investigation to another investigative or law 
enforcement officer. The current statutory language has 
hampered law enforcement in sharing information or receiving 
information from other government agencies outside of law 
enforcement that perform official duties that might 
nevertheless relate to terrorist activities or the national 
security. This section of the bill would amend the definition 
under Sec. 2510(7) of ``investigative or law enforcement 
officer'' to include any member of Federal law enforcement, 
intelligence, national security, national defense, protective, 
immigration personnel, or the President or Vice President of 
the United States for the purposes only of Sec. 2517 when it 
relates to foreign intelligence information as defined under 
title 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801(e) of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act.
    As with current law, the disclosure or sharing of 
information must be made to persons within these agencies who 
are engaged in the performance of the official duties of the 
official making or receiving the information.
    The bill also limits the information to that which relates 
to foreign intelligence information. This language narrows that 
which was proposed by the Administration that would have 
authorized disclosure to ``any officer or employee of the 
executive branch.''
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 104. Savings Provision
    This section is a technical and conforming amendment that 
would add chapter 206 (relating to pen registers/trap and trace 
orders) to section Sec. 2511(f) of the Wiretap Statute. Section 
2511(f) provides that nothing in chapter 119 (relating to the 
interception of communications), chapter 121 (relating to 
stored wire and electronic communications and transactional 
records access), or section 705 of the Communications Act of 
1934, ``shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United 
States Government of foreign intelligence information from 
international or foreign communications, or foreign 
intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise 
applicable Federal law. . . .'' The bill would include chapter 
206 under that Sec. 2511(f).
    This section also updates the language to include 
electronic communications.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 105. Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications
    Cyberattacks may be the work of terrorists or criminals. 
These attacks come in many forms that cost companies and 
citizens millions of dollars and endanger public safety. For 
instance, the denial-of-service attacks, where the objective of 
the attack is to disable the computer system, can shut down 
businesses or emergency responders or national security 
centers. This type of attack causes the target site's servers 
to run out of memory and become incapable of responding to the 
queries of legitimate customers or users. The victims of these 
computer trespasser's should be able to authorize law 
enforcement to intercept the trespassers communications. 
Section 105 amends current law to clarify that law enforcement 
may intercept such communications when authorized by the 
victims, under limited circumstances.
    Section 105(1) of the bill adds to the definitions under 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2510 the term: (1) ``protected computer'' and 
provides that the term has the same meaning set forth in 
Sec. 1030 of title 18; and (2) the term ``computer trespasser'' 
means a person who is accessing a protected computer without 
authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy 
in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the 
protected computer.
    Section 105(2) of the bill amends current law to allow 
victims of computer intrusions to authorize law enforcement to 
intercept the communications of a computer trespasser, under 
limited circumstances. The circumstances are: (1) the owner or 
operator of the protected computer must authorize the 
interception of the trespasser's communications; (2) the person 
who intercepts the communication must be lawfully engaged in an 
investigation; (3) the person acting under color of law has 
reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer 
trespasser's communication to be intercepted will be relevant 
to the investigation; and (4) the investigator may only 
intercept communications of the computer trespasser.
    Section 105(3) would update the ``good faith reliance'' 
defense in section 2520(d), so that the computer trespasser 
situation is also covered. Current law provides that a 
communications provider that relies in good faith on:

        (1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, or 
        a statutory authorization; (2) a request of an 
        investigative or law enforcement officer under section 
        2518(7) of this title; or (3) a good faith 
        determination that section 2511(3) of this title 
        permitted the conduct complained of; [has] a complete 
        defense against civil or criminal action brought under 
        this chapter or any other law.''

    Section 105(3) clarifies that communications providers 
assisting law-enforcement under this section will continue to 
be covered by the good faith reliance defense under 2320(d).
    The Committee does not intend that section 105 
(Interception of Computer Trespasser Communications) apply to 
persons who access a computer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1030 
(e)(1)), protected computer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1030 
(e)(2)), computer system, or computer network, for the purpose 
of testing the security and reliability of such computer, 
protected computer, computer system, or computer network. 
Furthermore, the Committee believes that critical 
infrastructures (as defined in Executive Order 13010, 61 F.R. 
37347, 42 U.S.C. 5195) should undergo automated electronic 
testing of their internal and external network assets, on a 
frequent and recurring basis.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 106. Technical Amendment
    Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2518(3) provides four criteria upon 
which a judge may enter an ex parte order authorizing the 
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. 
Section 2518(3)(c) is missing a coordinating conjunction. This 
section simply adds the coordinating conjunction ``and'' to 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2518(3)(c).
Section 107. Scope of Subpoenas for Record of Electronic Communications
    Terrorists and other criminals often use aliases in 
registering for Internet and telephone services. This creates a 
problem for law enforcement attempting to identify the suspects 
of terrorist acts or criminal acts that often support the 
terrorists. While the government currently can subpoena 
electronic communications or a remote computing services 
provider for the name, address and length of service of a 
suspect, this information does not help when the suspected 
terrorist or criminal lies about his or her identity. 
Permitting investigators to obtain credit card and other 
payment information by a subpoena, along with subscriber 
information (already permitted to be obtained under current 
law), will help law enforcement track a suspect and establish 
his or her true identity.
    This section would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(c) to 
authorize a subpoena for transactional records to include 
information regarding the form of payment in order to assist 
law enforcement in determining the user's identity.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 108. Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic 
        Evidence
    Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703(a) requires a search warrant to 
compel service providers to disclose unopened e-mails. This 
section does not affect the requirement for a search warrant, 
but rather attempts to address the investigative delays caused 
by the cross-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Currently, 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41 requires that the 
``warrant'' be obtained ``within the district'' where the 
property is located. An investigator, for example, located in 
Boston who is investigating a suspected terrorist in that city, 
might have to seek a suspect's electronic e-mail from an 
Internet service provider (ISP) account located in California. 
The investigator would then need to coordinate with agents, 
prosecutors and judges in the district in California where the 
ISP is located to obtain a warrant to search. These time delays 
could be devastating to an investigation, especially where 
additional criminal or terrorist acts are planned.
    Section 108 amends Sec. 2703 to authorize the court with 
jurisdiction over the investigation to issue the warrant 
directly, without requiring the intervention of its counterpart 
in the district where the ISP is located.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 109. Clarification of Scope
    This section amends Sec. 2511(2) of title 18 to clarify 
that when a cable company is providing the services of a 
telephone company or Internet service provider, that cable 
company must comply with the same laws governing the 
interception and disclosure of wire and electronic 
communications that currently apply to all other telephone 
companies or Internet service providers. The amendment does not 
affect the current prohibition under 631(h) of the 
Communication Act concerning the released records that reveal 
what a customer chooses to view, for example what particular 
premium channels or ``pay per view'' shows the customer 
selects.
    Under current law, the Communications Act as amended 
(passed at a time when cable companies provided only television 
viewing services on cable lines) prohibits a cable operator, 
with certain exceptions, from disclosing personally 
identifiable information concerning any subscriber without 
prior written or electronic notice to the subscriber concerned. 
At the same time, criminal laws governing the interception and 
disclosure of wire and electronic communications permit the 
court to order non-disclosure of the government interception. 
\2\ The section will end this perceived conflict in current law 
that has placed cable companies in the awkward position of 
trying to follow conflicting provisions of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See e.g.,18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3123(d); 2703 and 2705
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110. Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications to 
        Protect Life and Limb
    This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2702 to authorize 
electronic communications service providers to disclose the 
communications (or records relating to such communications) of 
their customers or subscribers if the provider reasonably 
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death 
or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of 
the information without delay.
    This section would also amend the law to allow 
communications providers to disclose non-content information 
(such as the subscriber's login records). Under current law, 
the communications provider is expressly permitted to disclose 
content information but not expressly permitted to provide non-
content information. This change would cure this problem and 
would permit the disclosure of the less-protected information, 
parallel to the disclosure of the more protected information.
    Additionally, this section would ensure that providers of 
communications remain covered under Sec. 2703(e), the no cause 
of action provision, when assisting law enforcement with an 
investigation. Under current law, there is a ``no cause of 
action against providers disclosing information . . . in 
accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, 
or certification under [chapter 121].'' This section would add 
information disclosed under ``statutory authorization,'' to 
cover providers that contact authorities in emergency 
situations.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 111. Use as Evidence
    This section extends the statutory exclusionary rule in 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2515 to electronic communications by amending the 
statutory suppression of evidence rule under the 1968 Wiretap 
Statute providing that illegally intercepted wire or oral 
communications cannot be used in court or in agency hearings 
under section 2515. The extension covers both real-time and 
stored communications. The sunset provision in section 162 
would sunset this section on December 31, 2003.
Section 112. Reports Concerning the Disclosure of the Contents of 
        Electronic Communications
    This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703, et. seq., which 
governs access to stored wire and electronic communications to 
require the government to compile and publish annual reports of 
data regarding the government's acquisition of this type of 
information. The criminal wiretap and pen/trap statutes already 
require reporting. The sunset provision in section 162 would 
sunset this section on December 31, 2003.
    The Committee recognizes that this bill imposes reporting 
requirements on the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
that will require the hiring of additional analysts. This 
Committee urges Congress to appropriate sufficient funds for 
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to comply with the 
reporting requirements contained in this bill.

                    Title I--Intelligence Gathering

     Subtitle B--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Classified 
                              Information

Section 151. Period of Orders of Electronic Surveillance of Non-United 
        States Persons Under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
    This section amends Sec. 1805(e)(1) of title 50, (Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)), to extend the FISA court 
authorized maximum period for electronic surveillance of 
officers and employees of foreign powers and of members of 
international terrorist cells from 90 days to a year. This 
section also amends Sec. 1824(d) of title 50, to extend the 
FISA court authorized maximum period for a physical search 
targeted against officers and employees of foreign powers and 
members of international terrorist cells from 45 days to 90 
days.
    Under current law, the government may go back to the FISA 
court after the 90- or 45-day period to get an extension on the 
same basis as the original order application. The Committee 
recognizes, however, that it often takes longer than the 
established periods to get on the premises or to conduct 
electronic surveillance and that the delay in reapplying poses 
a threat to our national security.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 152. Multi-Point Authority
    Section 1805(c)(2)(B) of title 50, permits the FISA court 
to order third parties, like common carriers, custodians, 
landlords and others, who are specified in the order, 
(specified persons) to provide assistance and information to 
law enforcement authorities in the installation of a wiretap or 
the collection of information related to a foreign intelligence 
investigation.
    Section 152 amends 1805(c)(2)(B) to insert language that 
permits the FISA court to direct the order to ``other persons'' 
if the court finds that the ``actions of the target of the 
application may have the effect of thwarting the identification 
of a specified person,'' who would be required to assist in the 
installation of any court-authorized intercept. This amendment 
is intended to expand the existing authority to allow for 
circumstances where the court finds that the actions of a 
target may thwart the identification of a specified person in 
the order. This is usually accomplished by the target moving 
his location. The move necessitates the use of third parities 
other than those specified in the original order to assist in 
installation of the listening device.
    This amendment allows the FISA court to compel any such new 
necessary parties to assist in the installation and to furnish 
all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary 
without specifically naming such persons. Nevertheless, the 
target of the electronic surveillance must still be identified 
or described in the order as under existing law.
    For example, international terrorists and foreign 
intelligence officers are trained to thwart surveillance by 
changing hotels, cell phones, Internet accounts, etc. just 
prior to important meetings or communications. Under present 
law, each time this happens the government must return to the 
FISA court for a new order just to change the name of the third 
party needed to assist in the new installation. The amendment 
permits the court to issue a generic order that can be 
presented to the new carrier, landlord or custodian directing 
their assistance to assure that the surveillance may be 
undertaken as soon as technically feasible.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 153. Foreign Intelligence Information
    Under 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 50 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1823(a)(7)(B) a FISA application requires certification, 
among other things, that ``the purpose'' of surveillance or 
search is to obtain foreign intelligence information. The 
certification for an order against any person who knowingly 
engages in espionage or terrorism may only be made upon written 
request of an official designated by the President. The 
Attorney General must personally review the application.
    Presently, a FISA certification request can only be used 
where foreign intelligence gathering is the sole or primary 
purpose of the investigation as interpreted by the courts. This 
requires law enforcement to evaluate constantly the relative 
weight of criminal and intelligence purposes when seeking to 
open a FISA investigation and thereafter as it proceeds.
    Section 153 amends 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 
1823(a)(7)(B) to require that certain officials (designated by 
the President) certify that obtaining foreign intelligence 
information is ``a significant purpose'' of the investigation.
    This bill language represents a compromise between current 
law and what the Administration had proposed.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 154. Foreign Intelligence Information Sharing
    Currently, the Wiretap Statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 et. 
seq.) limits disclosure and dissemination of information 
obtained for law enforcement purposes. Section 154 of the bill 
makes it lawful for foreign intelligence information, as 
defined in FISA, that is obtained as a result of a criminal 
investigation to be shared with specified law-enforcement, 
intelligence, protective, immigration, or national-defense 
personnel where they are performing official duties.
    Under current law, it is impossible for law enforcement or 
criminal investigators and the intelligence community to share 
foreign intelligence information collected under a criminal 
wiretap without seeking court authority. This limitation can 
adversely affect a criminal or counter-terrorism investigation 
where time is of the essence in preventing further deadly 
actions. This section makes it clear that law-enforcement and 
the intelligence community may share foreign intelligence 
information in the performance of their official duties without 
seeking a subpoena or court authority.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 155. Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority
    Section 155 amends section 1842(c) of FISA (50 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1842(c)) (the pen register and trap and trace provisions) 
to mirror similar provisions currently exist in criminal law 
(18 U.S.C. Sec. 3121 et. seq.). Currently, the ``pen register 
and trap and trace'' provisions of FISA go beyond the criminal 
law requirement of certification of relevance, and require that 
the communication instrument (e.g., a telephone line) has been 
used to contact a ``foreign power'' or agent of a foreign 
power. This is a greater burden than exists in even a minor 
criminal investigation.
    Section 155 clarifies that an application for pen register 
and trap and trace authority under FISA will be the same as the 
pen register and trap and trace authority defined in the 
criminal law. It will require the attorney for the government 
to certify to the court that the information sought is relevant 
to an ongoing FISA investigation. The current statutory burden 
of having to show that the telephone line has been, or is about 
to be used to contact a foreign power or terrorist is 
eliminated to conform to the existing and less burdensome 
criminal standards. The attorney for the government still must 
certify the information sought is relevant to an ongoing FISA 
investigation which continues to be directed at an agent of a 
foreign power.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 156. Business Records
    The Administration had sought administrative subpoena 
authority without having to go to court. Instead, section 156 
amends title 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861 by providing for an 
application to the FISA court for an order directing the 
production of tangible items such as books, records, papers, 
documents and other items upon certification to the court that 
the records sought are relevant to an ongoing foreign 
intelligence investigation. The amendment also provides a good 
faith defense for persons producing items pursuant to this 
section which does not constitute a waiver of any privilege in 
any other proceeding.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 157. Miscellaneous National Security Authorities
    Section 2709 of title 18 permits the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation to request, through a National 
Security Letter (NSL), subscriber information and toll billing 
records of a wire or electronic communication service provider. 
The request must certify (1) that the information sought is 
relevant to an authorized foreign counterintelligence 
investigation; and (2) there are specific and articulable facts 
that the person or entity to whom the information sought 
pertains is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power as 
defined in FISA. This requirement is more burdensome than the 
corresponding criminal authorities, which require only a 
certification of relevance. The additional requirement of 
documentation of specific and articulable facts showing the 
person or entity is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
power cause substantial delays in counterintelligence and 
counterterrorism investigations. Such delays are unacceptable 
as our law enforcement and intelligence community works to 
thwart additional terrorist attacks that threaten the national 
security of the United States and her citizens' lives and 
livelihoods.
    Section 157 amends title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2709 to mirror 
criminal subpoenas and allow a NSL to be issued when the FBI 
certifies, the information sought is ``relevant to an 
authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation.'' This 
harmonizes this provision with existing criminal law where an 
Assistant United States Attorney may issue a grand jury 
subpoena for all such records in a criminal case.
    The sunset provision in section 162 would sunset this 
section on December 31, 2003.
Section 158. Proposed Legislation
    Section 158 of the bill provides that no later than August 
31, 2003, the President shall propose legislation, with regard 
to the provisions set to expire under section 162 of this Act, 
if the President judges it to be necessary and expedient.
Section 159. Presidential Authority
    Section 203 of the International Emergency Economic Powers 
Act (50 U.S.C. Sec. 1702) grants to the President the power to 
exercise certain authorities relating to commerce with foreign 
nations upon his determination that there exits an unusual and 
extraordinary threat to the United States. Under this 
authority, the President may, among other things, freeze 
certain foreign assets within the jurisdiction of the United 
States. A separate law, the Trading With the Enemy Act, 
authorizes the President to take title to enemy assets when 
Congress has declared war.
    Section 159 of this bill amends section 203 of the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act to provide the 
President with authority similar to what he currently has under 
the Trading With the Enemy Act in circumstances where there has 
been an armed attack on the United States, or where Congress 
has enacted a law authorizing the President to use armed force 
against a foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign 
national. The proceeds of any foreign assets to which the 
President takes title under this authority must be placed in a 
segregated account can only be used in accordance with a 
statute authorizing the expenditure of such proceeds.
    Section 159 also makes a number of clarifying and technical 
changes to section 203 of the International Emergency Economic 
Powers Act, most of which will not change the way that 
provision currently is implemented.
Section 160. Clarification of No Technology Mandates.
    Current law requires communications service providers to 
furnish ``all information, facilities, and technical assistance 
necessary to accomplish . . .'' the execution of the court 
order (18 U.S.C. 3124(a)). This Act is not intended to affect 
obligations under the Communications Assistance for Law 
Enforcement Act \3\, nor does the Act impose any additional 
technical obligation or requirement on a provider of wire or 
electronic communication service or other person to furnish 
facilities or technical assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 47 U.S.C. 1001 et. seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 161. Civil Liability for Certain Unauthorized Disclosures
    This section increases the civil liability for unlawful 
disclosures of information obtained by wire or electronic 
intercepts, access to electronically-stored communications, pen 
register and trap and trace, and FISA intelligence. This 
section also provides administrative discipline for intentional 
violations and affords procedures for actions against the 
United States.
Section 162. Sunset
    This section would sunset the provisions of this title 
(other than section 109 and 159 relating to the Communications 
Act) on December 31, 2003.

            Title II--Aliens Engaging in Terrorist Activity

   Subtitle A--Detention and Removal of Aliens Engaging in Terrorist 
                                Activity

Section 201: Changes in Classes of Aliens who Are Ineligible for 
        Admission and Deportable Due to Terrorist Activity
    Under current law, unless otherwise specified, an alien is 
inadmissible and deportable for engaging in terrorist activity 
only when the alien has used explosives or firearms. The Act 
eliminates this limitation. A terrorist can use any object--
including a knife, a box-cutter, or an airplane--in a terrorist 
act.
    Under current law, there is no general prohibition against 
an alien contributing funds or other material support to a 
terrorist organization, while there is a prohibition against 
soliciting membership in or funds from others for a terrorist 
organization. The Act provides that an alien is inadmissible 
and deportable for contributing funds or material support to, 
or soliciting funds for or membership in, an organization that 
has been designated as a terrorist organization by the 
Secretary of State, or for contributing to, or soliciting in or 
for, any non-designated terrorist organization if the alien 
knows or reasonably should know that the funds, material 
support or solicitation will further terrorist activity.
    Current immigration law does not define ``terrorist 
organization'' for purposes of making an alien inadmissible and 
deportable. The Act defines such an organization to include 1) 
an organization so designated by the Secretary of State (under 
a process provided for under current law) and 2) any group of 
two of more individuals which commits terrorist activities or 
plans or prepares to commit (including locating targets for) 
terrorist activities. This latter category includes any group 
which has a significant subgroup that carries out such 
activities.
    The Act provides that an alien will not be admitted into 
the United States if the alien is a representative of a 
political, social or other similar group whose public 
endorsement of terrorism undermines the effort of the U.S. to 
eliminate or reduce terrorism. Also inadmissable will be an 
alien who has used his or her prominence to endorse or espouse 
terrorism or to persuade others to support terrorism if this 
would undermine the efforts of the U.S. to reduce or eliminate 
terrorism, and an alien who is associated with a terrorist 
organization and intends while in the U.S. to engage in 
activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security 
of the U.S. These provisions are similar to current law's 
``foreign policy'' ground of inadmissibility, barring entry to 
an alien whose entry or proposed activities in the U.S. would 
have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences 
for the U.S.
    The Act makes deportable an alien who is a representative 
of a terrorist organization so designated by the Secretary of 
State. It also makes deportable a representative of a 
political, social or other similar group who publicly endorses 
terrorism only if the endorsement undermines the effort of the 
U.S. to eliminate or reduce terrorism and is intended and 
likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action. Also 
deportable is an alien who has used his or her prominence to 
endorse terrorism or to persuade others to support terrorism 
only if this will undermine the efforts of the U.S. to reduce 
or eliminate terrorism and is intended and likely to incite or 
produce imminent lawless action.
    The intent of the bill is to make an alien inadmissible and 
deportable who has provided any material support to an 
organization designated as a ``foreign terrorist 
organizations'' by the Secretary of State pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 
sec. 1189. However, with respect to terrorist organizations 
which have not been so designated, and to organizations prior 
to their designation, the provision of material support, the 
soliciting of funds, and the soliciting for members is not a 
deportable or inadmissible offense unless the alien knew or 
reasonably should have known that the act would further 
terrorist activity. Thus, in such cases, support given to non-
designated organizations for purposes of humanitarian aid is 
permitted. This presumes that the alien does not provide 
material support for a so-called humanitarian ``front'' group 
of a terrorist organization when the alien knows or reasonably 
should know that the material support is in reality in 
furtherance of terrorist activity.
Section 202. Changes in Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    Current law provides a process whereby the Secretary of 
State can designate an organization as a foreign terrorist 
organization. The Act provides that either the Secretary or the 
Attorney General may recommend an organization for designation, 
and the organization will be so designated if the other 
concurs. In instances where either official cannot gain the 
other's concurrence, the President shall decide on the 
requested designation. The Act also clarifies that 
organizations can be redesignated as terrorist organizations 
and that designations and redesignations can be revoked.
Section 203. Mandatory Detention of Suspected Terrorists; Habeas 
        Corpus; Judicial Review
    Under the current regulatory regime, the INS can detain an 
alien for 48 hours before making a decision as to charging the 
alien with a crime or removable offense (except that in the 
event of emergency or other extraordinary circumstance, an 
additional reasonable time is allowed). The INS uses this time 
to establish an alien's true identity, to check domestic and 
foreign databases for information about the alien, and to 
liaise with law enforcement agencies.
    The Act provides a mechanism whereby the Attorney General 
can certify an alien as a suspected terrorist (or for espionage 
or certain other offenses) and detain him for 7 days before 
charging. If no charges are filed by the end of this period, 
the alien must be released. Otherwise, the Attorney General 
shall maintain custody of the alien until the alien is removed 
from the U.S. or found not to be inadmissible or deportable.
    The Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General (with no 
power of delegation) may certify an alien as a terrorist if 
they have reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a 
terrorist. Judicial review as to certification or detention is 
limited to habeas corpus review in the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia. Such judicial review shall include 
review of the merits of the decision to certify an alien as a 
terrorist.
    The alien shall be maintained in custody irrespective of 
any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney 
General determines that the alien no longer warrants 
certification. However, if an alien detained pursuant to this 
section was ordered removed as a terrorist (or on the other 
grounds allowing certification) and has not been removed within 
90 days and is unlikely to be removed in the reasonably 
foreseeable future, the alien may be detained for additional 
periods of up to 6 months if the Attorney General demonstrates 
that release will not protect the national security of the 
United States or ensure the public's safety.
    The Attorney General must submit a report to Congress on 
the use of this section every 6 months.
Section 204. Changes in Conditions for Granting Asylum
    The Act clarifies that even if the INS charges an alien for 
purposes of removal or deportation with a non terrorist-based 
offense, if the alien seeks asylum, the INS can seek to oppose 
its grant by providing evidence that the alien is a terrorist.
Section 205. Multilateral Cooperation Against Terrorists
    The Records of the State Department pertaining to the 
issuance of or refusal to issue visas to enter the U.S. are 
confidential and can be used only in the formulation and 
enforcement of U.S. law. The Act provides that the government 
can provide such records to a foreign government on a case-by-
case basis for the purpose of preventing, investigating, or 
punishing acts of terrorism.
Section 206. Requiring Sharing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        of Certain Criminal Record Extracts with other Federal Agencies 
        in Order to Enhance Border Security
    The Act provides that the Justice Department shall provide 
to the State Department and the INS access to the criminal 
history record information contained in the National Crime 
Information Center's Interstate Identification Index, Wanted 
Persons File, and to any other files maintained by the NCIC 
that may be mutually agreed upon by the Justice Department and 
the official to be provided access, for purposes of determining 
whether a visa applicant or an applicant for admission has a 
criminal history record. Such access shall be provided by means 
of extracts of the records for placement in the State 
Department's automated visa lookout database or other 
appropriate database. The State Department shall establish the 
conditions for the use of the information in order to limit the 
redissemination of the information, to ensure that it is used 
solely to determine whether to issue a visa, to ensure the 
security, confidentiality and destruction of the information, 
and to protect any privacy rights of the subjects of the 
information.
Section 207. Inadmissibility of Aliens Engaged in Money Laundering
    The Act makes inadmissible any alien who the government 
knows or had reason to believe is a money launderer. The 
Secretary of State shall create a watchlist, to be checked 
before the issuance of a visa or admission into the U.S., which 
identifies persons who are known or suspected of money 
laundering.
Section 208. Program to Collect Information Relating to Nonimmigrant 
        Foreign Students and Other Exchange Program Participants
    The Act amends the foreign student tracking system created 
by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996. The Act advances the date by which the system must 
be fully operational and provides that students who are 
nationals of countries that have repeatedly provided support 
for acts of international terrorism may be assessed a higher 
fee than other foreign students. In addition, the Act provides 
that the Attorney General shall provide to the Secretary of 
State and the Director of the FBI the information collected by 
the system.
Section 209. Protection of Northern Border
    The Act authorizes the appropriation of funds necessary to 
triple the number of Border Patrol personnel in each State 
along the northern border and the number of INS inspectors at 
each port of entry along the northern border. The Act also 
authorizes $50 million to the INS for purposes of making 
improvements in technology for monitoring the northern border.

    Subtitle B--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of 
                               Terrorism

    It is certain that some aliens fell victim to the terrorist 
attacks on the U.S. on September 11. This subtitle endeavors to 
modify the immigration laws to provide humanitarian relief to 
these victims and their family members.
Section 211. Special Immigrant Status
    The Act provides permanent resident status through the 
special immigrant program to an alien who was the beneficiary 
of a petition filed (on or before September 11) to grant the 
alien permanent residence as an employer-sponsored immigrant or 
of an application for labor certification (filed on or before 
September 11), if the petition or application was rendered null 
because of the disability of the beneficiary or loss of 
employment of the beneficiary due to physical damage to, or 
destruction of, the business of the petitioner or applicant as 
a direct result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, or 
because of the death of the petitioner or applicant as a direct 
result of the terrorist attacks. Permanent residence would be 
granted to an alien who was the spouse or child of an alien who 
was the beneficiary of a petition filed on or before September 
11 to grant the beneficiary permanent residence as a family-
sponsored immigrant (as long as the spouse or child follows to 
join not later than September 11, 2003). Permanent residence 
would be granted to the beneficiary of a petition for a 
nonimmigrant visa as the spouse or the fiance (and their 
children) of a U.S. citizen where the petitioning citizen died 
as a direct result of the terrorist attack. The section also 
provides permanent resident status to the grandparents of a 
child both of whose parents died as a result of the terrorist 
attacks, if either of such deceased parents was a citizen of 
the U.S. or a permanent resident.
Section 212. Extension of Filing or Reentry Deadlines
    The Act provides that an alien who was legally in a 
nonimmigrant status and was disabled as a direct result of the 
terrorist attacks on September 11 (and his or her spouse and 
children) may remain lawfully in the U.S. (and receive work 
authorization) until the later of the date that his or her 
status normally terminates or September 11, 2002. Such status 
is also provided to the nonimmigrant spouse and children of an 
alien who died as a direct result of the terrorist attacks.
    The Act provides that an alien who was lawfully present as 
a nonimmigrant at the time of the terrorist attacks will be 
granted 60 additional days to file an application for extension 
or change of status if the alien was prevented from so filing 
as a direct result of the terrorist attacks. Also, an alien who 
was lawfully present as a nonimmigrant at the time of the 
attacks but was then unable to timely depart the U.S. as a 
direct result of the attacks will be considered to have 
departed legally if doing so before November 11. An alien who 
was in lawful nonimmigrant status at the time of the attacks 
(and his or her spouse and children) but not in the U.S. at 
that time and was then prevented from returning to the U.S. in 
order to file a timely application for an extension of status 
as a direct result of the terrorist attacks will be given 60 
additional days to file an application and will have his or her 
status extended 60 days beyond the original due date of the 
application.
    Under current law, winners of the fiscal year 2001 
diversity visa lottery must enter the U.S. or adjust status by 
September 30, 2001. The Act provides that such an alien may 
enter the U.S. or adjust status until April 1, 2002, if the 
alien was prevented from doing so by September 30, 2001 as a 
direct result of the terrorist attacks. If the visa quota for 
the 2001 diversity visa program has already been exceeded, the 
alien shall be counted under the 2002 program. Also, if a 
winner of the 2001 lottery died as a direct result of the 
terrorist attacks, the spouse and children of the alien shall 
still be eligible for permanent residence under the program. 
The ceiling placed on the number of diversity immigrants shall 
not be exceeded in any case.
    Under the Act, in the case of an alien who was issued an 
immigrant visa that expires before December 31, 2001, if the 
alien was unable to timely enter the U.S. as a direct result of 
the terrorist attacks, the validity shall be extended until 
December 31.
    Under the Act, in the case of an alien who was granted 
parole that expired on or after September 11, if the alien was 
unable to enter the U.S. prior to the expiration date as a 
direct result of the terrorist attacks, the parole is extended 
an additional 90 days.
    Under the Act, in the case of an alien granted voluntary 
departure that expired between September 11 and October 11, 
2001, voluntary departure is extended an additional 30 days.
Section 213. Humanitarian Relief for Certain Surviving Spouses and 
        Children
    Current law provides that an alien who was the spouse of a 
U.S. citizen for at least 2 years before the citizen died shall 
remain eligible for immigrant status as an immediate relative. 
This also applies to the children of the alien. The Act 
provides that if the citizen died as a direct result of the 
terrorist attacks, the 2 year requirement is waived.
    The Act provides that if an alien spouse, child, or 
unmarried adult son or daughter had been the beneficiary of an 
immigrant visa petition filed by a permanent resident who died 
as a direct result of the terrorist attacks, the alien will 
still be eligible for permanent residence. In addition, if an 
alien spouse, child, or unmarried adult son or daughter of a 
permanent resident who died as a direct result of the terrorist 
attacks was present in the U.S. on September 11 but had not yet 
been petitioned for permanent residence, the alien can self-
petition for permanent residence.
    The Act provides that an alien spouse or child of an alien 
who 1) died as a direct result of the terrorist attacks and 2) 
was a permanent resident (petitioned-for by an employer) or an 
applicant for adjustment of status for an employment-based 
immigrant visa, may have his or her application for adjustment 
adjudicated despite the death (if the application was filed 
prior to the death).
Section 214. ``Age-Out'' Protection for Children
    Under current law, certain visas are only available to an 
alien until the alien's 21st birthday. The Act provides that an 
alien whose 21st birthday occurs this September and who is a 
beneficiary for a petition or application filed on or before 
September 11 shall be considered to remain a child for 90 days 
after the alien's 21st birthday. For an alien whose 21st 
birthday occurs after this September, (and who had a petition 
for application filed on his or her behalf on or before 
September 11) the alien shall be considered to remain a child 
for 45 days after the alien's 21st birthday.
Section 215. Temporary Administrative Relief
    The Act provides that temporary administrative relief may 
be provided to an alien who was lawfully present on September 
10, was on that date the spouse, parent or child of someone who 
died or was disabled as a direct result of the terrorist 
attacks, and is not otherwise entitled to relief under any 
other provision of Subtitle B.
Section 216. Evidence of Death, Disability, or Loss of Employment
    The Attorney General shall establish appropriate standards 
for evidence demonstrating that a death, disability, or loss of 
employment due to physical damage to, or destruction of, a 
business, occurred as a direct result of the terrorist attacks 
on September 11. The Attorney General is not required to 
promulgate regulations prior to implementing Subtitle B.
Section 217. No Benefit to Terrorists or Family Members of Terrorists
    No benefit under Subtitle B shall be provided to anyone 
culpable for the terrorist attacks on September 11 or to any 
family member of such an individual.
Section 218. Definitions
    The term ``specified terrorist activity'' means any 
terrorist activity conducted against the Government or the 
people of the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

                      Title III--Criminal Justice

                  Subtitle A--Substantive Criminal Law

Section 301. Statute of Limitations for Prosecuting Terrorism Offenses
    Current law provides that certain offenses, which are 
generally associated with terrorist activity, are subject to a 
either a 5-year or 8-year statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3282 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3286). This section amends current 
law to provide no statute of limitations exists for certain of 
these crimes (the most serious) and a 15-year statute of 
limitation for others.
    Specifically, under this section, the prosecution may bring 
a case at any time for any ``Federal terrorism offense,'' which 
must be shown to be ``calculated to influence or affect the 
conduct of government by intimidation or coercion or to 
retaliate against government conduct.''
    The prosecution may bring a case at any time for any of the 
underlying offenses listed in this section that are generally 
the most serious crimes related to terrorism (without regard to 
the ``calculated to influence'' element). The prosecution may 
bring a case within 15 years for any other crimes listed in 
this section that are typically related to terrorist 
activities.
    This provision applies to any crime committed before, on, 
or after enactment of this section.
Section 302. Alternative Maximum Penalties for Terrorism Crimes
    Under current law, penalties for certain offenses 
associated with terrorist activity are capped at twenty-years 
maximum imprisonment (some are capped at 10 years). This 
section changes current law to allow a judge to sentence a 
terrorist to prison for any number of years, up to life, for 
any offense that is defined as a ``Federal terrorism offense.'' 
To prove a ``Federal terrorism offense,'' the prosecution must 
prove both the elements of the underlying crime and that the 
crime was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of 
government by intimidation or coercion or to retaliate against 
government conduct.
    This section does not impose a mandatory life sentence. It 
simply gives the sentencing judge discretion to impose 
increased penalties by the bill language ``may be sentenced to 
life imprisonment.''
Section 303. Penalties for Terrorist Conspiracies
    Under current law, many, but not all, of the crimes that 
are considered to be linked to terrorism include provisions to 
allow prosecution for attempts or conspiracies to commit such 
offenses. This section brings the remaining terrorists related 
crimes into conformity with existing provisions of the law to 
ensure that any person who attempts to commit or conspires to 
commit a ``Federal terrorism offense'' (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 25(2)) or any crime related to terrorism (included in 
section 309(2)) will be subject to the same penalties as those 
that may be imposed upon one who actually commits that offense, 
including the new enhanced penalties listed above (in section 
301).
    This provision prohibits a person convicted of a conspiracy 
or attempt to commit a crime from being sentenced to death.
    This provision is consistent with current and long-standing 
drug laws under title 21 of the U.S. Code.
Section 304. Terrorism Crimes as RICO Predicates
    Terrorism, like traditional organized crime, is often 
characterized by a continuing pattern of criminal activity. 
This provision gives prosecutors the same tools to bring 
terrorists to justice as they have for organized crime.
    This provision would allow any ``Federal terrorism 
offense'' or any of the most serious crimes related to 
terrorism to be prosecuted using the Racketeer Influenced and 
Corrupt Organization provisions (title 18, chapter 96) of the 
1970 Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. The RICO provisions 
in the bill do create new crimes. These provisions merely 
enhance the civil and criminal consequences of certain crimes 
that have been deemed RICO predicates by Congress and provide 
better investigative and prosecutorial tools to identify and 
prove crimes.
    RICO may currently be used against any person who invests 
in or acquires an interest in, or conducts or participates in 
the affairs of an enterprise which engages in or whose 
activities affect interstate or foreign commerce through the 
collection of an unlawful debt or the patterned commission of 
various State and Federal crimes. Violations of law prosecuted 
under RICO are subject to fines, forfeitures, or imprisonment 
for not more than 20 years or life (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1963), 
depending on the penalties allowed under the predicate 
offenses. Anyone injured by a RICO violation may recover treble 
damages, court costs, and attorney fees under the civil RICO 
laws.
    The pattern of activity element of RICO requires the 
commission of two or more predicate offenses that are clearly 
related and suggest either a continuity of criminal activity or 
the threat of such continuity of criminal activity (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1961(5)). This provision allows the prosecution to 
establish a pattern of ongoing activity related to terrorism.
Section 305. Biological Weapons
    Currently under title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 175, anyone who 
knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, 
retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery 
system for use as a weapon or knowingly assists a foreign state 
or organization to do so or attempts, threatens, or conspires 
to do so, may be fined or imprisoned or both. The terms 
``biological agent,'' ``toxin'' and ``delivery system'' as used 
in this section are defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 178.
    This section changes the definition of what is considered 
to be prohibited behavior ``for use as a weapon'' to include 
the development, production, transfer, acquisition, retention 
or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery 
system other than for a prophylactic, protective, or other 
peaceful purpose. This changes current law by expanding the 
scope of the term for ``use as a weapon'' to include use of any 
biological materials or transfer of any such materials where no 
legitimate purpose can be shown.
    This section also creates a new offense punishable by a 
fine or up to 10 years in prison for knowingly possessing a 
biological agent or toxin of any type or quantity that is not 
reasonably justified for any peaceful purpose. This offense was 
created to deter persons from possessing any biological agent 
or toxin or any quantity of a biological agent that is not 
absolutely necessary for a legitimate purpose. This provision 
is included to prevent terrorists from targeting facilities 
that use biological agents or toxins in their business or from 
stockpiling biological agents or toxins. This prohibition does 
not apply to governmental activity authorized under the 
National Security Act of 1947.
    This section also prohibits any alien from a country 
recognized by the Secretary of State as supporting 
international terrorism from possessing, receiving or 
transporting a biological agent or toxin. It also prohibits 
possession, receipt or transportation of biological agents or 
toxins by many of those who are forbidden to own firearms under 
United States law. Penalties for violation of this section 
range from a fine to 10 years imprisonment or both.
Section 306. Support of Terrorism Through Expert Advice or Assistance
    Under title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A, it is a crime to provide 
material support for certain terrorist activities. This section 
expands the list of terrorist related crimes for which 
assistance is prohibited. (see section 309 below).
    The definition of providing material support to terrorists 
in title 18 is expanded to include providing ``expert advice or 
assistance.'' This will only be a crime if it is provided 
``knowing or intending that [the expert advice or assistance] 
be used in preparation for, or in carrying out,'' any ``Federal 
terrorism offense'' (as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 25) or any of 
the crimes related to terrorism listed under section 309(2).
Section 307. Prohibition Against Harboring
    Under title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 792, to harbor or conceal an 
individual one knows or has reason to believe has committed or 
is about to commit a crime of espionage against the United 
States is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This 
section amends the law to create a similar (but not identical) 
prohibition against harboring someone who one knows has 
committed or is about to commit any of the enumerated crimes 
generally associated with terrorist activity. This section also 
provides extraterritorial jurisdiction over any violation of 
this section.
Section 308. Post-Release Supervision of Terrorists
    Currently, under title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583, the length of 
time for post-release supervision is based on the severity of 
the crime. This section changes current law to allow a person 
convicted of a ``Federal terrorism offense'' to be under 
supervision for as long as the sentencing judge determines is 
necessary up to life.
Section 309. Definitions
    This section adds a new section to current law under title 
18 to define ``Federal terrorism offense.'' It uses the current 
definition of a ``Federal crime of terrorism'' included in 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 2332b(g)(5) and expands it to include underlying 
crimes related to biological weapons; possession, production or 
transfer of chemical weapons; harboring terrorists; fraud, 
theft or extortion related to computers; disclosure of 
identities of covert agents; assault on a flight crew member 
with a dangerous weapon; endangering human life by carrying an 
explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft; or homicide or 
attempted homicide committed on an aircraft.
    Under this section, a crime is only considered to be a 
``Federal terrorism offense'' if it can be proven to be 
``calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government 
by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate against government 
conduct.''
    Additionally, any attempt or conspiracy to commit any 
violation of this section is considered a ``Federal terrorism 
offense'' and therefore will be subject to the same penalties.
    This section also adds the definition of ``domestic 
terrorism'' to title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331 which currently 
defines ``international terrorism.'' This new definition is 
used in this legislation.
Section 310. Civil Damages
    This section amends Sec. 2707(c) that allows for civil 
damages against those who violate the provisions of Sec. 2703. 
Under current law, in no case shall a person entitled to 
recover damages receive less than the sum of $1,000. This 
section would increase that amount to $10,000.

                      Title III--Criminal Justice

                     Subtitle B--Criminal Procedure

Section 351. Single-Jurisdiction Search Warrants for Terrorism
    Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
currently requires that a search warrant be obtained within the 
judicial district where the property to be searched is located. 
The only exception is where property or a person now in the 
district might leave before the warrant is executed. This 
restriction often causes unnecessary delays and burdens on law 
enforcement officers investigating terrorist activities that 
have occurred across multiple judicial districts. These delays 
can have serious adverse consequences on an ongoing terrorism 
investigation.
    Section 351 amends rule 41(a) to provide that in an 
investigation of domestic or international terrorism a search 
warrant can be obtained in any district court of the United 
States, or any United States Court of Appeals, having 
jurisdiction over the offense being investigated. It permits 
the prosecution to obtain a warrant from the judge in the 
district where the investigation is being conducted, regardless 
of where the property to be searched is located.
Section 352. DNA Identification of Terrorists
    The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 14135a(d)(1)) governs the collection of DNA samples from 
convicted felons and includes a number of Federal crimes for 
which the DNA samples are required to be collected. Present 
law, however, does not cover a number of crimes that may be 
committed by terrorists. Currently, offenses relating to 
murders on hijacked aircraft, to blowing up buildings or to 
murder of U.S. nationals abroad are not qualifying Federal 
offenses for purposes of DNA sample collection. This new 
section extends DNA sample collection to all persons convicted 
of Federal terrorism offenses (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 25).
Section 353. Grand Jury Matters
    Rule 6(e)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
provides for an exception to the otherwise prohibited 
disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury. This Act 
amends rule 6(e) to permit the sharing of grand jury 
information that pertains to international or domestic 
terrorism, or national security, to a limited group of 
officials (including the President and Vice President) so long 
as they are performing official duties. The government is 
required to apply to the court in order to disclose the grand 
jury material. Permitting the sharing of certain grand jury 
information with those in the intelligence community will 
assist in the investigation of terrorist crimes and protect the 
national security.
Section 354. Extraterritoriality
    Chapter 113B of title 18 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331 et. seq.) 
sets forth the crimes of terrorism, including acts of terrorism 
across national boundaries. Under current law, certain 
terrorism crimes can be prosecuted by the United States 
regardless of where they are committed. For example, section 
2333b (terrorism transcending national boundaries) and section 
2332a (use of weapons of mass destruction). There are, however, 
no explicit extraterritoriality provisions in other statutes 
that may be violated by terrorists. This section of the bill 
clarifies that extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction exists for 
any Federal terrorism offense.
Section 355. Jurisdiction over crimes committed at the United States 
        facilities abroad.
    Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 7 entitled ``Special Maritime and 
Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States defined'' is a 
critical means of jurisdiction for Diplomatic Security agents. 
Certain statutes are limited to the scope of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 7, 
such as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 114 (Maiming), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 
(Murder), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1112 (Manslaughter), 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1113 (Attempt to commit Murder or Manslaughter), and 18 
U.S.C.Sec. 2243(a) (Sexual Abuse of a minor). In the year 2000, 
extraterritoriality regarding U.S. embassies and U.S. embassy 
housing overseas was the subject of differing interpretations 
by judicial circuits.
    Diplomatic Security agents have operated under the legal 
precedent of United States v. Erdos, 474 F2d 157 (4th Cir., 
1973), which held that an Embassy was within the special 
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 
This precedent is now being challenged. This section would make 
it clear that embassies and embassy housing of the United 
States in foreign states are included in the special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. This section 
does not apply to members of the Armed Forces because they 
would already be subject to the special maritime and 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States under title 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 3261(a).
Section 356. Special Agent authorities.
    This section amends Sec. 37(a) of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2709(a)), which sets 
forth the authorities of special agents in the Diplomatic 
Security Service. It both clarifies and enhances the scope of 
authorities of special agents in order that they can better 
fulfill their responsibilities.
    First, this provision places special agents on a par with 
other Federal law enforcement officers by enabling them to 
obtain and execute search and arrest warrants as well as obtain 
and serve subpoenas or summonses issued under the authority of 
the United States. Under current law, special agents may 
exercise these investigatory authorities only for offenses 
involving passport or visa issuance. They cannot exercise these 
essential authorities, for example, with respect to the 
protection of foreign officials or the Secretary of State. 
Currently, a special agent on protective detail who identifies 
an individual outside the Secretary of State's residence who is 
the subject of a warrant for planning the assassination of the 
Secretary of State cannot execute that warrant.
    Second, this section expands and clarifies the scope of 
special agent's authority to arrest individuals without a 
warrant when a Federal offense is committed in their presence, 
and to make arrests for felonies if they have reasonable 
grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed 
or is committing such felony. It also would enable special 
agents to arrest individuals interfering in their protective 
functions (see below) or without having to rely on local law 
enforcement officials.
    Third, this provision would subject an individual to a 
criminal misdemeanor penalty who interferes with a special 
agent, or another Federal law enforcement agent temporarily 
detailed in support of the Diplomatic Service protective 
mission. This is similar to a provision that pertains to 
interference with Secret Service agents or other Federal law 
enforcement officers detailed to assist the Secret Service in 
its protective mission (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3056(d)).

                   Title IV--Financial Infrastructure

Section 401. Laundering the Proceeds of Terrorism
    This section amends title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(c)(7)(D), 
which prohibits conducting or attempting to conduct a financial 
transaction knowing that the property involved represents the 
proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, by adding a further 
predicate offense to the list of specified unlawful activities 
in order to provide a more comprehensive coverage of the crime 
of money-laundering related to terrorism. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B, 
which prohibits providing material support or resources to 
foreign terrorist organizations, would be added to the list of 
crimes which define the term ``specified unlawful activity.''
Section 402. Material Support for Terrorism
    This section amends the definition of ``material support or 
resources'' under title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339A, which currently 
is defined as ``currency or other financial securities, 
financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false 
documentation or identification, communications equipment, 
facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, 
transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or 
religious materials.'' This section would replace the term 
``other financial securities'' with the phrase ``monetary 
instruments or financial securities.'' This change would allow 
for a broader range of monetary instruments to be included 
within the scope of ``material support or resources.''
Section 403. Assets of Terrorist Organizations
    This section would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981 to expressly 
provide that any property used to commit or facilitate the 
commission of, derived from, or otherwise involved in a Federal 
crime of terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331) is 
subject to civil forfeiture provisions. Currently, only the 
``proceeds'' of a crime of terrorism are subject to civil 
forfeiture provisions.
Section 404. Technical Clarification Relating to Provision of Material 
        Support to Terrorism
    This section would clarify that the exceptions for food and 
agricultural products to the nation's Trade Sanctions Programs 
provided for in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act of 2000 shall not limit the provisions of 18 
U.S.C. 2339A or 2339B which prohibit providing material support 
or resources to terrorists and terrorist organizations. With 
this section, it is clear that anyone who provides food and 
agricultural products in support of terrorist activity will 
still be subject to criminal prosecution under sections 2339A 
and 2339B and will not be able to hide behind the exceptions to 
the Trade Sanctions Program.
Section 405. Disclosure of Tax Information in terrorism and nation 
        security investigations
    This section amends 26 U.S.C. 6103(i)(3) to permit the 
disclosure of return information by the Internal Revenue 
Service to the extent necessary to the head of any Federal law 
enforcement agency in order to assist in the investigation of 
terrorist incidents, threats, or activities. The disclosure may 
also be made upon the particularized request of the head of a 
Federal law enforcement agency. The section also provides that, 
upon the application of a person appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate, return information shall be open to 
inspection by, or disclosure to, officers and employees of the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury engaged in 
the collection or analysis of intelligence information 
concerning terrorist organizations or activities. Such 
information may be disseminated to other agencies only for use 
in analysis of and investigation into terrorist activities.
Section 406. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
    Generally, 18 U.S.C. 1029 prohibits the production, use, or 
trafficking of counterfeit access devices. Access devices are 
any card, code, account number, pin number or other means of 
account access that can be used to obtain money, goods, 
services, or any other thing of value. This section would add a 
new paragraph that would make any person outside the 
jurisdiction of the United States criminally liable for a 
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029 if the offense involves an access 
device issued , owned, managed, or controlled by a financial 
institution within the jurisdiction of the United States and 
the person transports, delivers, conveys, or otherwise stores, 
or holds within the jurisdiction of the United States, the 
proceeds of such offense or property derived therefrom. 
Depending on the persons level of involvement, the maximum 
penalty ranges from 10 to 20 years imprisonment.

                   Title V--Emergency Authorizations

Section 501. Office of Justice Programs
    This section removes any caps or limitations available 
under the Victim's of Crime Fund to address the needs of the 
victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This 
provision specifically allows the funds allocated for 
responding to the needs of victims of terrorism within the 
United States to be awarded to victim service organizations, 
public agencies (Federal, State and local), and non-
governmental organizations that provide assistance to victims 
of crime. This section makes changes to the public safety 
officer benefits (PSOB) programs to provide for public safety 
officers disabled in the September 11, 2001, terrorist acts and 
the rescue efforts associated with these acts.
Section 502. Attorney General's Authority to Pay Rewards
    This section specifies that any reward offered by the 
Attorney General in connection with hijackings or terrorist 
acts shall not be subject to spending limitations or count 
toward any aggregate spending limitations.
Section 503. Limited Authority to Pay Overtime
    Under the Department of Justice Appropriations Act for FY 
2001, overtime pay for INS agents was limited to $30,000. This 
section removes the limitation on overtime pay that was 
included in DOJ Appropriations Act for 2001 for border patrol 
and other INS agents.
Section 504. Department of State Reward Authority
    This section amends the reward program operated by the 
Secretary of State, which provides rewards for information that 
assists in the prevention of acts of terrorism, narcotics 
trafficking, and other criminal activities. In addition to the 
information the Secretary of State is authorized to make 
rewards for, this section would authorize the Secretary to 
offer rewards for information that leads to ``dismantling an 
organization'' or information regarding the ``identification or 
location of an individual holding a leadership position in a 
terrorist organization.'' This section also amends the 
Secretary of States rewards program to increase the maximum 
payment allowed to $10 million or more if the Secretary 
personally determines that an offer or payment is essential to 
the national security interests of the United States.
Section 505: Authorization of Funds for DEA Police Training in South 
        and Central Asia
    An amendment offered by Mr. Hyde, which was adopted by the 
Committee, created a new Section 505 of the bill. Section 505 
authorizes $5,000,000 for FY 2002 for regional antidrug 
training in the Republic of Turkey by the Drug Enforcement 
Administration for police, as well as increased precursor 
chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region.
    One source of funding for the activities of the Taliban and 
Al Qaida is drug trafficking in heroin. Most of the chemicals 
necessary for the production of heroin come from South and 
Central Asia. Once the heroin is produced, most of it is 
smuggled through Turkey for sale in Europe. This section will 
provide assistance to train Turkish and South and Central Asian 
law enforcement to combat drug trafficking at all stages in the 
production and transportation of heroin.
Section 506: Public Safety Officer Benefits
    Currently, payments are made to families of public safety 
officers killed or officers disabled in the line of duty. This 
provision will increase the authorized payment level from 
$100,000 to $250,000 for any death or disability occurring on 
or after January 1, 2001.

                         Title VI--Dam Security

Section 601. Security of Reclamation Dams, Facilities, and Resources
    Section 2805(a) of the Reclamation Recreation Management 
Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 460l-33(a)) provides that the Secretary 
of the Interior shall promulgate such regulations as are 
necessary to ensure the protection and well-being of the public 
with respect to the use of Reclamation lands and ensure the 
protection of resource values. This section of the bill 
provides that any person who violates any regulation 
promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under 16 U.S.C. 
460l-33(a) shall be fined, imprisoned not more than 6 months, 
or both. This section also provides that the Secretary may 
authorize law enforcement personnel from the Department of the 
Interior, other Federal agencies, or law enforcement personnel 
of any State or local government to act as law enforcement 
officers within a Reclamation project or on Reclamation lands. 
This will ensure that an appropriate penalty will be attached 
to any violation of regulations intended to protect the public 
safety on Reclamation lands and that law enforcement officers 
will be available to enforce those regulations.

                        Title VII--Miscellaneous

Section 701. Employment of Translators by the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigations
    There is a great need to increase the number of translators 
available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to 
assist in the war on terrorism. This section authorizes the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to expedite the 
employment of personnel as translators to support 
counterterrorism investigations and operations. This section 
also directs the FBI to establish such security requirements as 
are necessary for these translators and to report to Congress 
regarding the status of translators employed by the Department 
of Justice.
Section 702. Review of the Department of Justice
    In the wake of several significant incidents of security 
lapses and breach of regulations, there has arisen the need for 
independent oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. 
Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigations is currently 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice Office of 
Professional Responsibility. This section directs the Inspector 
General of the Department of Justice to appoint a Deputy 
Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigations who shall be responsible for 
supervising independent oversight of the FBI until September 
30, 2004. This section also directs the Deputy Inspector to 
review all information alleging abuses of civil rights, civil 
liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by employees of the 
Department of Justice, which could include allegations of 
inappropriate profiling at the border.
Section 703. Feasability study on use of biometric identifier scanning 
        system with access to the FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint 
        Identification System at overseas consular posts and points of 
        entry to the United States
    Requires the Attorney General to conduct a study of the 
feasibility of utilizing a biometric identifier (fingerprint) 
scanning system at consular offices and points of entry into 
the United States to identify aliens who may be wanted in 
connection with criminal or terrorist investigations in the 
United States or abroad. A biometric fingerprint scanning 
system is a sophisticated computer scanning technology that 
analyzes a persons fingerprint and compares the measurement 
with a verified sample digitally stored in the system. The 
accuracy of these systems is claimed to be above 99.9%. The 
biometric identifier system contemplated by this section would 
have access to the database of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System. The section requires that the Attorney General shall 
submit a summary of the findings of the study to Congress 
within 90 days.
Section 704. Study of access
    Requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation to study and 
report to Congress, not later than December 31, 2002, on the 
feasibility of providing to airlines access via computer to the 
names of passengers who are suspected of terrorist activity by 
Federal officials. This section authorizes to be appropriated 
for fiscal years 2002 through 2003 not more than $250,000 to 
conduct this study and report to Congress.
Section 705. Enforcement of certain anti-terrorism judgments
    Under current law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1604, a foreign state is 
immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United 
States. There are general exceptions to this law set forth in 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1605. One of those exceptions, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1605(a)(7), provides that a foreign state shall not be 
immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States 
in cases where personal injury or death has occurred as a 
result of a terrorist act. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1610(f)(1)(A) allows 
any judgment in such a case to be enforced against the property 
in the United States of foreign state that would otherwise be 
immune, including embassy property. However, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1610(f)(3) allows the President to waive this exception in 
the interests of national security. Section 705 would limit the 
President's ability to waive the exception in 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1610(f)(1)(A). Under this section, the President's waiver 
authority would not apply to assets of a foreign state in the 
United States that have been used for any nondiplomatic purpose 
and assets that have been sold to a third party (the proceeds 
from the sale of such assets would be subject to seizure).

         Title VIII--Private Security Officer Quality Assurance

Section 801. Short Title
    This section is cited as the ``Private Security Officer 
Quality Assurance Act of 2001''.
Section 802. Findings
    Private security officers are much more prominent in 
society today than years ago. Members of the public are 
increasingly likely to have contact with these individuals and 
often mistake them for law enforcement officers. It is 
important that private security officers are qualified, well-
trained individuals to supplement the work of sworn law 
enforcement officers.
Section 803. Background Checks
    An association of employers of private security officers 
may submit fingerprints or other methods of identification to 
the Attorney General for purposes of State licensing or 
certification. The Attorney General may prescribe any necessary 
regulations related to security, confidentiality, accuracy, 
use, dissemination of this information and may impose such fees 
which may be necessary.
Section 804. Sense of Congress
    It is the sense of Congress that States should participate 
in the background check system.
Section 805. Definitions
    This section defines terms related to this title.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
1.  Repealed.
     * * * * * * *
25.  Federal terrorism offense defined.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
                    States defined

    The term ``special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of 
the United States'', as used in this title, includes:
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (9)(A) With respect to offenses committed by or 
        against a United States national, as defined in section 
        1203(c) of this title--
                    (i) the premises of United States 
                diplomatic, consular, military, or other United 
                States Government missions or entities in 
                foreign states, including the buildings, parts 
                of buildings, and the land appurtenant or 
                ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, 
                used for purposes of those missions or 
                entities; and
                    (ii) residences in foreign states and the 
                land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, 
                irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of 
                those missions or entities or used by United 
                States personnel assigned to those missions or 
                entities, except that this paragraph does not 
                supercede any treaty or international agreement 
                in force on the date of the enactment of this 
                paragraph.
            (B) This paragraph does not apply with respect to 
        an offense committed by a person described in section 
        3261(a).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 25. Federal terrorism offense defined

    As used in this title, the term ``Federal terrorism 
offense'' means an offense that is--
            (1) is calculated to influence or affect the 
        conduct of government by intimidation or coercion; or 
        to retaliate against government conduct; and
            (2) is a violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy 
        to violate- section 32 (relating to destruction of 
        aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to 
        violence at international airports), 81 (relating to 
        arson within special maritime and territorial 
        jurisdiction), 175, 175b (relating to biological 
        weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-
        (d) (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme 
        Court assassination and kidnaping), 791 (relating to 
        harboring terrorists), 831 (relating to nuclear 
        materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic 
        explosives), 844(f) or (i) (relating to arson and 
        bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956 (relating to 
        conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government), 
        1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) (relating to 
        protection of computers), 1114 (relating to protection 
        of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 
        (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign 
        officials, official guests, or internationally 
        protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 
        1361 (relating to injury of Government property or 
        contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of 
        communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 
        (relating to injury to buildings or property within 
        special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 
        United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of an 
        energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to Presidential 
        and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 
        1992, 2152 (relating to injury of fortifications, 
        harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 
        (relating to destruction of national defense materials, 
        premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to production 
        of defective national defense materials, premises, or 
        utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime 
        navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against 
        maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain 
        homicides and other violence against United States 
        nationals occurring outside of the United States), 
        2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 
        2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending 
        national boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing 
        material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to 
        providing material support to terrorist organizations), 
        or 2340A (relating to torture);
            (3) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2284);
            (4) section 601 (relating to disclosure of 
        identities of covert agents) of the National Security 
        Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421); or
            (5) any of the following provisions of title 49: 
        section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second 
        sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a 
        flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 
        46505(b)(3), (relating to explosive or incendiary 
        devices, or endangerment of human life by means of 
        weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or 
        attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) 
        (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous 
        liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     CHAPTER 10--BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

Sec.
175.  Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons.
     * * * * * * *
175b.  Possession by restricted persons.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 175. Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons

    (a)  * * *
    (b) Additional Offense.--Whoever knowingly possesses any 
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system of a type or in a 
quantity that, under the circumstances, is not reasonably 
justified by a prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful 
purpose, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
than 10 years, or both.
    [(b)] (c) Definition.--For purposes of this [section, the] 
section--
            (1) the term ``for use as a weapon'' [does not 
        include] includes the development, production, 
        transfer, acquisition, retention, or possession of any 
        biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for other 
        than prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful 
        [purposes.] purposes, and 
            (2) the terms biological agent and toxin do not 
        encompass any biological agent or toxin that is in its 
        naturally-occurring environment, if the biological 
        agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, or 
        otherwise extracted from its natural source.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 175b. Possession by restricted persons

    (a) No restricted person described in subsection (b) shall 
ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess 
in or affecting commerce, any biological agent or toxin, or 
receive any biological agent or toxin that has been shipped or 
transported in interstate or foreign commerce, if the 
biological agent or toxin is listed as a select agent in 
subsection (j) of section 72.6 of title 42, Code of Federal 
Regulations, pursuant to section 511(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132), 
and is not exempted under subsection (h) of such section 72.6, 
or Appendix A of part 72 of such title; except that the term 
select agent does not include any such biological agent or 
toxin that is in its naturally-occurring environment, if the 
biological agent or toxin has not been cultivated, collected, 
or otherwise extracted from its natural source.
    (b) As used in this section, the term ``restricted person'' 
means an individual who--
            (1) is under indictment for a crime punishable by 
        imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
            (2) has been convicted in any court of a crime 
        punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
            (3) is a fugitive from justice;
            (4) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance 
        (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
        Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
            (5) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the 
        United States;
            (6) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or 
        has been committed to any mental institution; or
            (7) is an alien (other than an alien lawfully 
        admitted for permanent residence) who is a national of 
        a country as to which the Secretary of State, pursuant 
        to section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 
        1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), section 620A of chapter 
        1 of part M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
        U.S.C. 2371), or section 40(d) of chapter 3 of the Arms 
        Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)), has made a 
        determination that remains in effect that such country 
        has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
        international terrorism.
    (c) As used in this section, the term ``alien'' has the 
same meaning as that term is given in section 1010(a)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3)), and the 
term ``lawfully'' admitted for permanent residence has the same 
meaning as that term is given in section 101(a)(20) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20)).
    (d) Whoever knowingly violates this section shall be fined 
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or 
both, but the prohibition contained in this section shall not 
apply with respect to any duly authorized governmental activity 
under title V of the National Security Act of 1947.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  CHAPTER 37--ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

Sec.
791.  Prohibition against harboring.
792.  Harboring or concealing persons.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 791. Prohibition against harboring

    Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows has 
committed, or is about to commit, an offense described in 
section 25(2) or this title shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than ten years or both. There is 
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over any violation of 
this section or any conspiracy or attempt to violate this 
section. A violation of this section or of such a conspiracy or 
attempt may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in 
which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other 
Federal judicial district as provided by law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 46--FORFEITURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 981. Civil forfeiture

    (a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to 
the United States:
            (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (G) All assets, foreign or domestic--
                    (i) of any person, entity, or organization 
                engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of 
                domestic terrorism or international terrorism 
                (as defined in section 2331) against the United 
                States, citizens or residents of the United 
                States, or their property, and all assets, 
                foreign or domestic, affording any person a 
                source of influence over any such entity or 
                organization;
                    (ii) acquired or maintained by any person 
                for the purpose of supporting, planning, 
                conducting, or concealing an act of domestic 
                terrorism or international terrorism (as 
                defined in section 2331) against the United 
                States, citizens or residents of the United 
                States, or their property; or
                    (iii) derived from, involved in, or used or 
                intended to be used to commit any act of 
                domestic terrorism or international terrorism 
                (as defined in section 2331) against the United 
                States, citizens or residents of the United 
                States, or their property.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the United 
States, engages in any act that, if committed within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an offense 
under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, shall be subject 
to the fines, penalties, imprisonment, and forfeiture provided 
in this title if--
            (1) the offense involves an access device issued, 
        owned, managed, or controlled by a financial 
        institution, account issuer, credit card system member, 
        or other entity within the jurisdiction of the United 
        States; and
            (2) the person transports, delivers, conveys, 
        transfers to or through, or otherwise stores, secrets, 
        or holds within the jurisdiction of the United States, 
        any article used to assist in the commission of the 
        offense or the proceeds of such offense or property 
        derived therefrom.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 95--RACKETEERING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) As used in this section--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) the term ``specified unlawful activity'' 
        means--
                    (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (D) an offense under section 32 (relating 
                to the destruction of aircraft), section 37 
                (relating to violence at international 
                airports), section 115 (relating to 
                influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a 
                Federal official by threatening or injuring a 
                family member), section 152 (relating to 
                concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; 
                bribery), section 215 (relating to commissions 
                or gifts for procuring loans), section 351 
                (relating to congressional or Cabinet officer 
                assassination), any of sections 500 through 503 
                (relating to certain counterfeiting offenses), 
                section 513 (relating to securities of States 
                and private entities), section 542 (relating to 
                entry of goods by means of false statements), 
                section 545 (relating to smuggling goods into 
                the United States), section 549 (relating to 
                removing goods from Customs custody), section 
                641 (relating to public money, property, or 
                records), section 656 (relating to theft, 
                embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer 
                or employee), section 657 (relating to lending, 
                credit, and insurance institutions), section 
                658 (relating to property mortgaged or pledged 
                to farm credit agencies), section 666 (relating 
                to theft or bribery concerning programs 
                receiving Federal funds), section 793, 794, or 
                798 (relating to espionage), section 831 
                (relating to prohibited transactions involving 
                nuclear materials), section 844 (f) or (i) 
                (relating to destruction by explosives or fire 
                of Government property or property affecting 
                interstate or foreign commerce), section 875 
                (relating to interstate communications), 
                section 956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, 
                kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in a 
                foreign country), section 1005 (relating to 
                fraudulent bank entries), 1006 (relating to 
                fraudulent Federal credit institution entries), 
                1007 (relating to Federal Deposit Insurance 
                transactions), 1014 (relating to fraudulent 
                loan or credit applications), 1032 (relating to 
                concealment of assets from conservator, 
                receiver, or liquidating agent of financial 
                institution), section 1111 (relating to 
                murder), section 1114 (relating to murder of 
                United States law enforcement officials), 
                section 1116 (relating to murder of foreign 
                officials, official guests, or internationally 
                protected persons), section 1201 (relating to 
                kidnapping), section 1203 (relating to hostage 
                taking), section 1361 (relating to willful 
                injury of Government property), section 1363 
                (relating to destruction of property within the 
                special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 
                section 1708 (theft from the mail), section 
                1751 (relating to Presidential assassination), 
                section 2113 or 2114 (relating to bank and 
                postal robbery and theft), section 2280 
                (relating to violence against maritime 
                navigation), section 2281 (relating to violence 
                against maritime fixed platforms), or section 
                2319 (relating to copyright infringement), 
                section 2320 (relating to trafficking in 
                counterfeit goods and services),, section 2332 
                (relating to terrorist acts abroad against 
                United States nationals), section 2332a 
                (relating to use of weapons of mass 
                destruction), section 2332b (relating to 
                international terrorist acts transcending 
                national boundaries), or section 2339A or 2339B 
                (relating to providing material support to 
                terrorists) of this title, section 46502 of 
                title 49, United States Code,, a felony 
                violation of the Chemical Diversion and 
                Trafficking Act of 1988 (relating to precursor 
                and essential chemicals), section 590 of the 
                Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590) (relating 
                to aviation smuggling), section 422 of the 
                Controlled Substances Act (relating to 
                transportation of drug paraphernalia), section 
                38(c) (relating to criminal violations) of the 
                Arms Export Control Act, section 11 (relating 
                to violations) of the Export Administration Act 
                of 1979, section 206 (relating to penalties) of 
                the International Emergency Economic Powers 
                Act, section 16 (relating to offenses and 
                punishment) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 
                any felony violation of section 15 of the Food 
                Stamp Act of 1977 (relating to food stamp 
                fraud) involving a quantity of coupons having a 
                value of not less than $5,000, any violation of 
                section 543(a)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 
                (relating to equity skimming), or any felony 
                violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; 
                or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1961. Definitions

    As used in this chapter--
            (1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or 
        threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, 
        robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, 
        or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical 
        (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
        Act), which is chargeable under State law and 
        punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) 
        any act which is indictable under any of the following 
        provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 
        (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports 
        bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to 
        counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from 
        interstate shipment) if the act indictable under 
        section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to 
        embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 
        891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), 
        section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in 
        connection with identification documents), section 1029 
        (relating to fraud and related activity in connection 
        with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the 
        transmission of gambling information), section 1341 
        (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to 
        wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial 
        institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the 
        procurement of citizenship or nationalization 
        unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction 
        of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 
        (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship 
        papers), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene 
        matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of 
        justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of 
        criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the 
        obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 
        1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or 
        an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating 
        against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 
        1542 (relating to false statement in application and 
        use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or 
        false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to 
        misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud 
        and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), 
        sections 1581-1588 (relating to peonage and slavery), 
        section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, 
        robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to 
        racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate 
        transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 
        (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 
        1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling 
        businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering 
        of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to 
        engaging in monetary transactions in property derived 
        from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 
        (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in 
        the commission of murder-for-hire), sections 2251, 
        2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation 
        of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to 
        interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), 
        sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate 
        transportation of stolen property), section 2318 
        (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for 
        phonorecords, computer programs or computer program 
        documentation or packaging and copies of motion 
        pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 
        (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), 
        section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and 
        trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of 
        live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to 
        trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit 
        marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in 
        certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), 
        sections 2341-2346 (relating to trafficking in 
        contraband cigarettes), sections 2421-24 (relating to 
        white slave traffic), (C) any act which is indictable 
        under title 29, United States Code, section 186 
        (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to 
        labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to 
        embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense 
        involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 
        (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud 
        in the sale of securities, or the felonious 
        manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, 
        buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled 
        substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 
        of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any 
        law of the United States, (E) any act which is 
        indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions 
        Reporting Act, [or] (F) any act which is indictable 
        under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 
        (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), 
        section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain 
        aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 
        (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) 
        if the act indictable under such section of such Act 
        was committed for the purpose of [financial gain.] 
        financial gain, or (G) any act that is a Federal 
        terrorism offense or is indictable under any of the 
        following provisions of law: section 32 (relating to 
        destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 
        37(a)(1) (relating to violence at international 
        airports), 175 (relating to biological weapons), 229 
        (relating to chemical weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to 
        congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination 
        and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 
        842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f) 
        or (i) when it involves a bombing (relating to arson 
        and bombing of certain property), 930(c) when it 
        involves an attack on a Federal facility, 1114 when it 
        involves murder (relating to protection of officers and 
        employees of the United States), 1116 when it involves 
        murder (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign 
        officials, official guests, or internationally 
        protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 
        1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, 
        stations, or systems), 1366 (relating to destruction of 
        an energy facility), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to 
        Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and 
        kidnaping), 1992 (relating to trainwrecking), 2280 
        (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 
        2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed 
        platforms), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass 
        destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism 
        transcending national boundaries), 2339A (relating to 
        providing material support to terrorists), 2339B 
        (relating to providing material support to terrorist 
        organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this 
        title; section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2284); or section 46502 (relating to 
        aircraft piracy) or 60123(b) (relating to destruction 
        of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline 
        facility) of title 49;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 113B--TERRORISM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec.
2331.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
2332c.  Attempts and conspiracies.
     * * * * * * *
2338.  [Exclusive] Federal jurisdiction.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2331. Definitions

    As used in this chapter--
            (1) the term ``international terrorism'' means 
        activities that--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) appear to be intended (or to have the 
                effect)--
                            (i)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            (iii) to affect the conduct of a 
                        government [by assassination or 
                        kidnapping] (or any function thereof) 
                        by mass destruction, assassination, or 
                        kidnapping (or threat thereof); and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) the term ``person'' means any individual or 
        entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial 
        interest in property; [and]
            (4) the term ``act of war'' means any act occurring 
        in the course of--
                    (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) armed conflict between military forces 
                of any origin[.]; and
            (5) the term ``domestic terrorism'' means 
        activities that--
                    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life 
                that are a violation of the criminal laws of 
                the United States or of any State; and
                    (B) appear to be intended (or to have the 
                effect)--
                            (i) to intimidate or coerce a 
                        civilian population;
                            (ii) to influence the policy of a 
                        government by intimidation or coercion; 
                        or
                            (iii) to affect the conduct of a 
                        government (or any function thereof) by 
                        mass destruction, assassination, or 
                        kidnapping (or threat thereof).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (5) the term ``Federal crime of terrorism'' means 
        an offense that--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) [is a violation of--
                            [(i) section 32 (relating to 
                        destruction of aircraft or aircraft 
                        facilities), 37 (relating to violence 
                        at international airports), 81 
                        (relating to arson within special 
                        maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 
                        175 (relating to biological weapons), 
                        351 (relating to congressional, 
                        cabinet, and Supreme Court 
                        assassination, kidnapping, and 
                        assault), 831 (relating to nuclear 
                        materials), 842 (m) or (n) (relating to 
                        plastic explosives), 844(e) (relating 
                        to certain bombings), 844 (f) or (i) 
                        (relating to arson and bombing of 
                        certain property), 930(c), 956 
                        (relating to conspiracy to injure 
                        property of a foreign government), 1114 
                        (relating to protection of officers and 
                        employees of the United States), 1116 
                        (relating to murder or manslaughter of 
                        foreign officials, official guests, or 
                        internationally protected persons), 
                        1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 
                        (relating to injury of Government 
                        property or contracts), 1362 (relating 
                        to destruction of communication lines, 
                        stations, or systems), 1363 (relating 
                        to injury to buildings or property 
                        within special maritime and territorial 
                        jurisdiction of the United States), 
                        1366 (relating to destruction of an 
                        energy facility), 1751 (relating to 
                        Presidential and Presidential staff 
                        assassination, kidnapping, and 
                        assault), 1992, 2152 (relating to 
                        injury of fortifications, harbor 
                        defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 
                        (relating to destruction of national 
                        defense materials, premises, or 
                        utilities), 2156 (relating to 
                        production of defective national 
                        defense materials, premises, or 
                        utilities), 2280 (relating to violence 
                        against maritime navigation), 2281 
                        (relating to violence against maritime 
                        fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to 
                        certain homicides and other violence 
                        against United States nationals 
                        occurring outside of the United 
                        States), 2332a (relating to use of 
                        weapons of mass destruction), 2332b 
                        (relating to acts of terrorism 
                        transcending national boundaries), 
                        2332c, 2339A (relating to providing 
                        material support to terrorists), 2339B 
                        (relating to providing material support 
                        to terrorist organizations), or 2340A 
                        (relating to torture);
                            [(ii) section 236 (relating to 
                        sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) 
                        of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
                        U.S.C. 2284); or
                            [(iii) section 46502 (relating to 
                        aircraft piracy) or section 60123(b) 
                        (relating to destruction of interstate 
                        gas or hazardous liquid pipeline 
                        facility) of title 49] is a Federal 
                        terrorism offense.

Sec. 2332c. Attempts and conspiracies

    (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), any person who 
attempts or conspires to commit any Federal terrorism offense 
shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for 
the offense, the commission of which was the object of the 
attempt or conspiracy.
    (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), any person who 
attempts or conspires to commit any offense described in 
section 25(2) shall be subject to the same penalties as those 
prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the 
object of the attempt or conspiracy.
    (c) A death penalty may not be imposed by operation of this 
section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2338. [Exclusive] Federal jurisdiction

    There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over any 
Federal terrorism offense and any offense under this chapter, 
in addition to any extraterritorial jurisdiction that may exist 
under the law defining the offense, if the person committing 
the offense or the victim of the offense is a national of the 
United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act) or if the offense is directed at the security 
or interests of the United States. The district courts of the 
United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over an action 
brought under this chapter.

Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

    (a) Offense.--Whoever, within the United States, provides 
material support or resources or conceals or disguises the 
nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or 
resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in 
preparation for, or in carrying out, [a violation of section 
32, 37, 81, 175, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 
903(c), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 
1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332c, or 
2340A of this title or section 46502 of title 49] any Federal 
terrorism offense or any offense described in section 25(2), or 
in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment or an 
escape from the commission of any such [violation,] offense, 
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
years, or both. A violation of this section may be prosecuted 
in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying 
offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial 
district as provided by law.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``material 
support or resources'' means currency [or other financial 
securities] or monetary instruments or financial securities, 
financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or 
assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, 
communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal 
substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other 
physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   CHAPTER 119--WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND 
                  INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Sec.
2510.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[2515.  Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral 
          communications.]
2515.  Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire, oral, or 
          electronic communications.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 2510. Definitions

    As used in this chapter--
            (1) ``wire communication'' means any aural transfer 
        made in whole or in part through the use of facilities 
        for the transmission of communications by the aid of 
        wire, cable, or other like connection between the point 
        of origin and the point of reception (including the use 
        of such connection in a switching station) furnished or 
        operated by any person engaged in providing or 
        operating such facilities for the transmission of 
        interstate or foreign communications or communications 
        affecting interstate or foreign commerce [and such term 
        includes any electronic storage of such communication];

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) ``Investigative or law enforcement officer'' 
        means any officer of the United States or of a State or 
        political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law 
        to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for 
        offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney 
        authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the 
        prosecution of such offenses, and (for purposes only of 
        section 2517 as it relates to foreign intelligence 
        information as that term is defined in section 101(e) 
        of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
        (50 U.S.C. 1801(e))) any Federal law enforcement, 
        intelligence, national security, national defense, 
        protective, immigration personnel, or the President or 
        Vice President of the United States;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (14) ``electronic communications system'' means any 
        wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or 
        photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire 
        or electronic communications, and any computer 
        facilities or related electronic equipment for the 
        electronic storage of such communications;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (17) ``electronic storage'' means--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) any storage of such communication by an 
                electronic communication service for purposes 
                of backup protection of such communication; 
                [and]
            (18) ``aural transfer'' means a transfer containing 
        the human voice at any point between and including the 
        point of origin and the point of reception[.];
            (19) ``protected computer'' has the meaning set 
        forth in section 1030; and
            (20) ``computer trespasser'' means a person who 
        accesses a protected computer without authorization and 
        thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any 
        communication transmitted to, through, or from the 
        protected computer.

Sec. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic 
                    communications prohibited

    (1)  * * *
    (2)(a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121, or 
section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed 
to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of 
foreign intelligence information from international or foreign 
communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in 
accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a 
foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means 
other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and 
procedures in this chapter [or chapter 121], chapter 121, or 
chapter 206 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic 
surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the 
interception of domestic [wire and oral] wire, oral, and 
electronic communications may be conducted.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a 
person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or 
electronic communications of a computer trespasser, if--
            (i) the owner or operator of the protected computer 
        authorizes the interception of the computer 
        trespasser's communications on the protected computer;
            (ii) the person acting under color of law is 
        lawfully engaged in an investigation;
            (iii) the person acting under color of law has 
        reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the 
        computer trespasser's communications will be relevant 
        to the investigation; and
            (iv) such interception does not acquire 
        communications other than those transmitted to or from 
        the computer trespasser.
    (j) With respect to a voluntary or obligatory disclosure of 
information (other than information revealing customer cable 
viewing activity) under this chapter, chapter 121, or chapter 
206, subsections (c)(2)(B) and (h) of section 631 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 do not apply.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2515. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted [wire or oral] 
                    wire, oral, or electronic communications

    [Whenever any wire or oral communication has been 
intercepted] (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whenever 
any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been 
intercepted, or any electronic communication in electronic 
storage has been disclosed, no part of the contents of such 
communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received 
in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or 
before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, 
regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of 
the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof 
if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of 
this chapter or chapter 121.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the disclosure, before 
a grand jury or in a criminal trial, hearing, or other criminal 
proceeding, of the contents of a communication, or evidence 
derived therefrom, against a person alleged to have 
intercepted, used, or disclosed the communication in violation 
of this chapter, or chapter 121, or participated in such 
violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2517. Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, 
                    oral, or electronic communications

    (1) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by 
any means authorized by this chapter or under the circumstances 
described in section 2515(b), has obtained knowledge of the 
contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or 
evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to 
another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent 
that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance 
of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the 
disclosure.
    (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by 
any means authorized by this chapter or under the circumstances 
described in section 2515(b), has obtained knowledge of the 
contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication or 
evidence derived therefrom may use such contents to the extent 
such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his 
official duties.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2518. Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic 
                    communications

    (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Upon such application the judge may enter an ex parte 
order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving 
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within 
the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is 
sitting (and outside that jurisdiction but within the United 
States in the case of a mobile interception device authorized 
by a Federal court within such jurisdiction), if the judge 
determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant 
that--
            (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (c) normal investigative procedures have been tried 
        and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to 
        succeed if tried or to be too dangerous; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 
any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially 
designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney 
General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal 
prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting 
pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines 
that--
            (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if 
an application for an order approving the interception is made 
in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after 
the interception has occurred, or begins to occur. In the 
absence of an order, such interception shall immediately 
terminate when the communication sought is obtained or when the 
application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier. In 
the event such application for approval is denied, or in any 
other case where the interception is terminated without an 
order having been issued, the contents of any wire, oral, or 
electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having 
been obtained in violation of this chapter, and an inventory 
shall be served as provided for in [subsection (d)] subsection 
(8)(d) of this section on the person named in the application.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (10)(a) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or 
proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, 
regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a 
State, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress 
the contents of any wire [or oral], oral, or electronic 
communication intercepted pursuant to this chapter, or evidence 
derived therefrom, on the grounds that--
            (i)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (iii) the interception was not made in conformity 
        with the order of authorization or approval[.];
except that no suppression may be ordered under the 
circumstances described in section 2515(b). Such motion shall 
be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding unless there 
was no opportunity to make such motion or the person was not 
aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, 
the contents of the intercepted wire [or oral], oral, or 
electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall 
be treated as having been obtained in violation of this 
chapter. The judge, upon the filing of such motion by the 
aggrieved person, may in his discretion make available to the 
aggrieved person or his counsel for inspection such portions of 
the intercepted communication or evidence derived therefrom as 
the judge determines to be in the interests of justice.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) The remedies and sanctions described in this chapter 
with respect to the interception of electronic communications 
are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for 
nonconstitutional violations of this chapter involving such 
communications.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Computation of Damages.--(1) * * *
    (2) In an action under this section by a citizen or legal 
permanent resident of the United States against the United 
States or any Federal investigative or law enforcement officer 
(or against any State investigative or law enforcement officer 
for disclosure or unlawful use of information obtained from 
Federal investigative or law enforcement officers), the court 
may assess as damages whichever is the greater of--
            (A) the sum of actual damages suffered by the 
        plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a 
        result of the violation; or
            (B) statutory damages of whichever is the greater 
        of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.
    [(2)] (3) In any other action under this section, the court 
may assess as damages whichever is the greater of--
            (A) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the 
        plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a 
        result of the violation; or
            (B) statutory damages of whichever is the greater 
        of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.
    (d) Defense.--A good faith reliance on--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) a good faith determination that section 2511(3) 
        or 2511(2)(i) of this title permitted the conduct 
        complained of;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or 
use by an investigative or law enforcement officer of 
information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a 
violation of this chapter for purposes of section 2520(a).
    (g) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or 
her conclusions and the reasons therefor to the Deputy 
Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (h) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      CHAPTER 121--STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND 
                      TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS

Sec.
2701.  Unlawful access to stored communications.
[2702.  Disclosure of contents.
[2703.  Requirements for governmental access.]
2702.  Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records.
2703.  Required disclosure of customer communications or records.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2702. Disclosure of contents]

Sec. 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

    (a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)--
            (1)  * * *
            (2) a person or entity providing remote computing 
        service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to 
        any person or entity the contents of any communication 
        which is carried or maintained on that service--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) solely for the purpose of providing 
                storage or computer processing services to such 
                subscriber or customer, if the provider is not 
                authorized to access the contents of any such 
                communications for purposes of providing any 
                services other than storage or computer 
                processing[.]; and
            (3) a provider of remote computing service or 
        electronic communication service to the public shall 
        not knowingly divulge a record or other information 
        pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such 
        service (not including the contents of communications 
        covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental 
        entity.
    (b) [Exceptions.--A person or entity] Exceptions for 
Disclosure of Communications.--A provider described in 
subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) to a law enforcement agency--
                    (A) if the contents--
                            (i)  * * *
                            (ii) appear to pertain to the 
                        commission of a crime; [or]
                    (B) if required by section 227 of the Crime 
                Control Act of 1990[.]; or
                    (C) if the provider reasonably believes 
                that an emergency involving immediate danger of 
                death or serious physical injury to any person 
                requires disclosure of the information without 
                delay.
    (c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records.--A 
provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or 
other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of 
such service (not including the contents of communications 
covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2))--
            (1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
            (2) with the lawful consent of the customer or 
        subscriber;
            (3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition 
        of the service or to the protection of the rights or 
        property of the provider of that service;
            (4) to a governmental entity, if the provider 
        reasonably believes that an emergency involving 
        immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to 
        any person justifies disclosure of the information; or
            (5) to any person other than a governmental entity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 2703. Requirements for governmental access]

Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records

    (a) [Contents of Electronic] Contents of wire or electronic 
Communications in Electronic Storage.--A governmental entity 
may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic 
communication service of the [contents of an electronic] 
contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in 
electronic storage in an electronic communications system for 
one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant 
issued [under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] using 
the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under 
investigation or equivalent State warrant. A governmental 
entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic 
communications services of the [contents of an electronic] 
contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in 
electronic storage in an electronic communications system for 
more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available 
under subsection (b) of this section.
    (b) [Contents of Electronic] Contents of wire or electronic 
Communications in a Remote Computing Service.--(1) A 
governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing 
service to disclose the contents of [any electronic] any wire 
or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made 
applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection--
            (A) without required notice to the subscriber or 
        customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant 
        issued [under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] 
        using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of 
        Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over 
        the offense under investigation or equivalent State 
        warrant; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to [any 
electronic] any wire or electronic communication that is held 
or maintained on that service--
            (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or 
Remote Computing Service.--(1)(A) [Except as provided in 
subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic communication 
service or remote computing service may disclose a record or 
other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of 
such service (not including the contents of communications 
covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to any person 
other than a governmental entity.
    [(B) A provider of electronic communication service or 
remote computing service shall disclose a record or other 
information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such 
service (not including the contents of communications covered 
by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to a governmental 
entity only when] A governmental entity may require a provider 
of electronic communication service or remote computing service 
to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a 
subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the 
contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--
            (i) obtains a warrant issued [under the Federal 
        Rules of Criminal Procedure] using the procedures 
        described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by 
        a court with jurisdiction over the offense under 
        investigation or equivalent State warrant;
            (ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure 
        under subsection (d) of this section;
            (iii) has the consent of the subscriber or customer 
        to such disclosure; [or]
            (iv) submits a formal written request relevant to a 
        law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing 
        fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a 
        subscriber or customer of such provider, which 
        subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as 
        such term is defined in section 2325 of this title)[.]; 
        or
            (v) seeks information pursuant to subparagraph (B).
    [(C)] (B) A provider of electronic communication service or 
remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental 
[entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone 
toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber 
number or identity, and length of service of a] entity the--
            (i) name;
            (ii) address;
            (iii) local and long distance telephone connection 
        records, or records of session times and durations;
            (iv) length of service (including start date) and 
        types of service utilized;
            (v) telephone or instrument number or other 
        subscriber number or identity, including any 
        temporarily assigned network address; and
            (vi) means and source of payment (including any 
        credit card or bank account number);
of a subscriber to or customer of such service [and the types 
of services the subscriber or customer utilized,] when the 
governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized 
by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury 
or trial subpoena or any means available under subparagraph 
[(B)] (A).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) No Cause of Action Against a Provider Disclosing 
Information Under This Chapter.--No cause of action shall lie 
in any court against any provider of wire or electronic 
communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or 
other specified persons for providing information, facilities, 
or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, 
warrant, subpoena, [or certification] certification, or 
statutory authorization under this chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g) Reports Concerning the Disclosure of the Contents of 
Electronic Communications.--
            (1) By January 31 of each calendar year, the judge 
        issuing or denying an order, warrant, or subpoena, or 
        the authority issuing or denying a subpoena, under 
        subsection (a) or (b) of this section during the 
        preceding calendar year shall report on each such 
        order, warrant, or subpoena to the Administrative 
        Office of the United States Courts--
                    (A) the fact that the order, warrant, or 
                subpoena was applied for;
                    (B) the kind of order, warrant, or subpoena 
                applied for;
                    (C) the fact that the order, warrant, or 
                subpoena was granted as applied for, was 
                modified, or was denied;
                    (D) the offense specified in the order, 
                warrant, subpoena, or application;
                    (E) the identity of the agency making the 
                application; and
                    (F) the nature of the facilities from which 
                or the place where the contents of electronic 
                communications were to be disclosed.
            (2) In January of each year the Attorney General or 
        an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by 
        the Attorney General shall report to the Administrative 
        Office of the United States Courts--
                    (A) the information required by 
                subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) 
                of this subsection with respect to each 
                application for an order, warrant, or subpoena 
                made during the preceding calendar year; and
                    (B) a general description of the 
                disclosures made under each such order, 
                warrant, or subpoena, including--
                            (i) the approximate number of all 
                        communications disclosed and, of those, 
                        the approximate number of incriminating 
                        communications disclosed;
                            (ii) the approximate number of 
                        other communications disclosed; and
                            (iii) the approximate number of 
                        persons whose communications were 
                        disclosed.
            (3) In June of each year, beginning in 2003, the 
        Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
        States Courts shall transmit to the Congress a full and 
        complete report concerning the number of applications 
        for orders, warrants, or subpoenas authorizing or 
        requiring the disclosure of the contents of electronic 
        communications pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of 
        this section and the number of orders, warrants, or 
        subpoenas granted or denied pursuant to subsections (a) 
        and (b) of this section during the preceding calendar 
        year. Such report shall include a summary and analysis 
        of the data required to be filed with the 
        Administrative Office by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
        subsection. The Director of the Administrative Office 
        of the United States Courts is authorized to issue 
        binding regulations dealing with the content and form 
        of the reports required to be filed by paragraphs (1) 
        and (2) of this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2707. Civil action

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Damages.--(1) The court may assess as damages in a 
civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages 
suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator 
as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person 
entitled to recover receive less than the sum of [$1,000] 
$10,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court 
may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action 
to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess 
the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees 
determined by the court.
    (2) In an action under this section by a citizen or legal 
permanent resident of the United States against the United 
States or any Federal investigative or law enforcement officer 
(or against any State investigative or law enforcement officer 
for disclosure or unlawful use of information obtained from 
Federal investigative or law enforcement officers), the court 
may assess as damages whichever is the greater of--
            (A) the sum of actual damages suffered by the 
        plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a 
        result of the violation; or
            (B) statutory damages of $10,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or 
use by an investigative or law enforcement officer of 
information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a 
violation of this chapter for purposes of section 2707(a).
    (g) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or 
her conclusions and the reasons therefor to the Deputy 
Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (h) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and 
                    transactional records

    (a) * * *
    (b) Required Certification.--The Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not 
lower than Deputy Assistant Director, may--
            (1) request the name, address, length of service, 
        and local and long distance toll billing records, or 
        electronic communication transactional records of a 
        person or entity if the Director (or his designee in a 
        position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director) 
        certifies in writing to the wire or electronic 
        communication service provider to which the request is 
        [made that--
                    [(A) the name, address, length of service, 
                and toll billing records sought are relevant to 
                an authorized foreign counterintelligence 
                investigation; and
                    [(B) there are specific and articulable 
                facts giving reason to believe that the person 
                or entity to whom the information sought 
                pertains is a foreign power or an agent of a 
                foreign power as defined in section 101 of the 
                Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
                (50 U.S.C. 1801); and] made that the name, 
                address, length of service, and toll billing 
                records sought are relevant to an authorized 
                foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
            (2) request the name, address, and length of 
        service of a person or entity if the Director (or his 
        designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant 
        Director) certifies in writing to the wire or 
        electronic communication service provider to which the 
        request is [made that--
                    [(A) the information sought is relevant to 
                an authorized foreign counterintelligence 
                investigation; and
                    [(B) there are specific and articulable 
                facts giving reason to believe that 
                communication facilities registered in the name 
                of the person or entity have been used, through 
                the services of such provider, in communication 
                with--
                            [(i) an individual who is engaging 
                        or has engaged in international 
                        terrorism as defined in section 101(c) 
                        of the Foreign Intelligence 
                        Surveillance Act or clandestine 
                        intelligence activities that involve or 
                        may involve a violation of the criminal 
                        statutes of the United States; or
                            [(ii) a foreign power or an agent 
                        of a foreign power under circumstances 
                        giving reason to believe that the 
                        communication concerned international 
                        terrorism as defined in section 101(c) 
                        of the Foreign Intelligence 
                        Surveillance Act or clandestine 
                        intelligence activities that involve or 
                        may involve a violation of the criminal 
                        statutes of the United States.] made 
                        that the information sought is relevant 
                        to an authorized foreign 
                        counterintelligence investigation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 2711. Definitions for chapter

    As used in this chapter--
            (1) the terms defined in section 2510 of this title 
        have, respectively, the definitions given such terms in 
        that section; [and]
            (2) the term ``remote computing service'' means the 
        provision to the public of computer storage or 
        processing services by means of an electronic 
        communications system[.]; and
            (3) the term ``court of competent jurisdiction'' 
        has the meaning given that term in section 3127, and 
        includes any Federal court within that definition, 
        without geographic limitation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                   CHAPTER 203--ARREST AND COMMITMENT

Sec.
3041.  Power of courts and magistrates.
     * * * * * * *
[3059A. Special rewards for information relating to certain financial 
          institution offenses.
[3059B. General reward authority.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 3059. Rewards and appropriations therefor

    [(a)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 
$25,000 as a reward or rewards for the capture of anyone who is 
charged with violation of criminal laws of the United States or 
any State or of the District of Columbia, and an equal amount 
as a reward or rewards for information leading to the arrest of 
any such person, to be apportioned and expended in the 
discretion of, and upon such conditions as may be imposed by, 
the Attorney General of the United States. Not more than 
$25,000 shall be expended for information or capture of any one 
person.
    [(2) If any of the said persons shall be killed in 
resisting lawful arrest, the Attorney General may pay any part 
of the reward money in his discretion to the person or persons 
whom he shall adjudge to be entitled thereto but no reward 
money shall be paid to any official or employee of the 
Department of Justice of the United States.
    [(b) The Attorney General each year may spend not more than 
$10,000 for services or information looking toward the 
apprehension of narcotic law violators who are fugitives from 
justice.
    [(c)(1) In special circumstances and in the Attorney 
General's sole discretion, the Attorney General may make a 
payment of up to $10,000 to a person who furnishes information 
unknown to the Government relating to a possible prosecution 
under section 2326 which results in a conviction.
    [(2) A person is not eligible for a payment under paragraph 
(1) if--
            [(A) the person is a current or former officer or 
        employee of a Federal, State, or local government 
        agency or instrumentality who furnishes information 
        discovered or gathered in the course of government 
        employment;
            [(B) the person knowingly participated in the 
        offense;
            [(C) the information furnished by the person 
        consists of an allegation or transaction that has been 
        disclosed to the public--
                    [(i) in a criminal, civil, or 
                administrative proceeding;
                    [(ii) in a congressional, administrative, 
                or General Accounting Office report, hearing, 
                audit, or investigation; or
                    [(iii) by the news media, unless the person 
                is the original source of the information; or
            [(D) when, in the judgment of the Attorney General, 
        it appears that a person whose illegal activities are 
        being prosecuted or investigated could benefit from the 
        award.
    [(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(C)(iii), the term 
``original source'' means a person who has direct and 
independent knowledge of the information that is furnished and 
has voluntarily provided the information to the Government 
prior to disclosure by the news media.
    [(4) Neither the failure of the Attorney General to 
authorize a payment under paragraph (1) nor the amount 
authorized shall be subject to judicial review.

[Sec. 3059A. Special rewards for information relating to certain 
                    financial institution offenses

    [(a)(1) In special circumstances and in the Attorney 
General's sole discretion, the Attorney General may make 
payments to persons who furnish information unknown to the 
Government relating to a possible prosecution under section 
215, 225, 287, 656, 657, 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1032, 
1341, 1343, 1344, or 1517 of this title affecting a depository 
institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation or any other agency or entity of the United States, 
or to a possible prosecution for conspiracy to commit such an 
offense.
    [(2) The amount of a payment under paragraph (1) shall not 
exceed $50,000 and shall be paid from the Financial Institution 
Information Award Fund established under section 2569 of the 
Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act of 1990.
    [(b) A person is not eligible for a payment under 
subsection (a) if--
            [(1) the person is a current or former officer or 
        employee of a Federal or State government agency or 
        instrumentality who furnishes information discovered or 
        gathered in the course of his government employment;
            [(2) the furnished information consists of 
        allegations or transactions that have been disclosed to 
        a member of the public in a criminal, civil, or 
        administrative proceeding, in a congressional, 
        administrative, or General Accounting Office report, 
        hearing, audit or investigation, from any other 
        government source, or from the news media unless the 
        person is the original source of the information;
            [(3) the person is an institution-affiliated party 
        (as defined in section 3(u) of the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(u)) which withheld 
        information during the course of any bank examination 
        or investigation authorized pursuant to section 10 of 
        such Act (12 U.S.C. 1820) who such party owed a 
        fiduciary duty to disclose;
            [(4) the person is a member of the immediate family 
        of the individual whose activities are the subject of 
        the declaration or where, in the discretion of the 
        Attorney General, it appears the individual could 
        benefit from the award; or
            [(5) the person knowingly participated in the 
        violation of the section with respect to which the 
        payment would be made.
    [(c) For the purposes of subsection (b)(2), the term 
``original source'' means a person who has direct and 
independent knowledge of the information on which the 
allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the 
information to the Government prior to the disclosure.
    [(d) Neither the failure of the Attorney General to 
authorize a payment nor the amount authorized shall be subject 
to judicial review.
    [(e)(1) A person who--
            [(A) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, 
        harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against 
        in the terms and conditions of employment by an 
        employer because of lawful acts done by the person on 
        behalf of the person or others in furtherance of a 
        prosecution under any of the sections referred to in 
        subsection (a) (including provision of information 
        relating to, investigation for, initiation of, 
        testimony for, or assistance in such a prosecution); 
        and
            [(B) was not a knowing participant in the unlawful 
        activity that is the subject of such a prosecution,
may, in a civil action, obtain all relief necessary to make the 
person whole.
    [(2) Relief under paragraph (1) shall include--
            [(A)(i) reinstatement with the same seniority 
        status;
            [(ii) 2 times the amount of back pay plus interest; 
        and
            [(iii) interest on the backpay,
that the plaintiff would have had but for the discrimination; 
and
            [(B) compensation for any special damages sustained 
        as a result of the discrimination, including litigation 
        costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

[Sec. 3059B. General reward authority

    [(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Attorney General may pay rewards and receive from any 
department or agency funds for the payment of rewards under 
this section to any individual who assists the Department of 
Justice in performing its functions.
    [(b) Not later than 30 days after authorizing a reward 
under this section that exceeds $100,000, the Attorney General 
shall give notice to the respective chairmen of the Committees 
on Appropriations and the Committees on the Judiciary of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives.
    [(c) A determination made by the Attorney General to 
authorize an award under this section and the amount of any 
reward authorized shall be final and conclusive, and not 
subject to judicial review.]

Sec. 3059. Rewards and appropriation therefor

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Attorney 
General may pay rewards in accordance with procedures and 
regulations established or issued by the Attorney General.
    (b) Limitations.-- The following limitations apply with 
respect to awards under subsection (a):
            (1) No such reward, other than in connection with a 
        terrorism offense or as otherwise specifically provided 
        by law, shall exceed $2,000,000.
            (2) No such reward of $250,000 or more may be made 
        or offered without the personal approval of either the 
        Attorney General or the President.
            (3) The Attorney General shall give written notice 
        to the Chairmen and ranking minority members of the 
        Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the 
        Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 
        30 days after the approval of a reward under paragraph 
        (2);
            (4) Any executive agency or military department (as 
        defined, respectively, in sections 105 and 102 of title 
        5) may provide the Attorney General with funds for the 
        payment of rewards.
            (5) Neither the failure to make or authorize such a 
        reward nor the amount of any such reward made or 
        authorized shall be subject to judicial review.
    (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``reward'' means 
a payment pursuant to public advertisements for assistance to 
the Department of Justice.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  CHAPTER 204--REWARDS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING TERRORIST ACTS AND 
ESPIONAGE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3072. Determination of entitlement; maximum amount; Presidential 
                    approval; conclusiveness

    The Attorney General shall determine whether an individual 
furnishing information described in section 3071 is entitled to 
a reward and the amount to be paid. [A reward under this 
section may be in an amount not to exceed $500,000. A reward of 
$100,000 or more may not be made without the approval of the 
President or the Attorney General personally. A determination 
made by the Attorney General or the President under this 
chapter shall be final and conclusive, and no court shall have 
power or jurisdiction to review it.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 3075. Authorization for appropriations

    [There are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal 
year limitation, $5,000,000 for the purpose of this chapter.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         CHAPTER 206--PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Sec.
3121.  General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device 
          use; exception.
     * * * * * * *
3128.  Civil action.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3121. General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace 
                    device use; exception

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Limitation.--A government agency authorized to install 
and use a pen register or trap and trace device under this 
chapter or under State law shall use technology reasonably 
available to it that restricts the recording or decoding of 
electronic or other impulses to the dialing, routing, 
addressing, and signaling information utilized in [call 
processing] the processing and transmitting of wire and 
electronic communications.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3123. Issuance of an order for a pen register or a trap and trace 
                    device

    [(a) In General.--Upon an application made under section 
3122 of this title, the court shall enter an ex parte order 
authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or a 
trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court if 
the court finds that the attorney for the Government or the 
State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to 
the court that the information likely to be obtained by such 
installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal 
investigation.]
    (a) In General.--
            (1) Upon an application made under section 
        3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order 
        authorizing the installation and use of a pen register 
        or trap and trace device anywhere within the United 
        States, if the court finds that the attorney for the 
        Government has certified to the court that the 
        information likely to be obtained by such installation 
        and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal 
        investigation. The order shall, upon service thereof, 
        apply to any person or entity providing wire or 
        electronic communication service in the United States 
        whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the 
        order. Whenever such an order is served on any person 
        or entity not specifically named in the order, upon 
        request of such person or entity, the attorney for the 
        Government or law enforcement or investigative officer 
        that is serving the order shall provide written or 
        electronic certification that the assistance of the 
        person or entity being served is related to the order.
            (2) Upon an application made under section 
        3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order 
        authorizing the installation and use of a pen register 
        or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the 
        court, if the court finds that the State law-
        enforcement or investigative officer has certified to 
        the court that the information likely to be obtained by 
        such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing 
        criminal investigation.
    (b) Contents of Order.--An order issued under this 
section--
            (1) shall specify--
                    (A) the identity, if known, of the person 
                to whom is leased or in whose name is listed 
                the telephone line or other facility to which 
                the pen register or trap and trace device is to 
                be attached or applied;
                    (B) the identity, if known, of the person 
                who is the subject of the criminal 
                investigation;
                    [(C) the number and, if known, physical 
                location of the telephone line to which the pen 
                register or trap and trace device is to be 
                attached and, in the case of a trap and trace 
                device, the geographic limits of the trap and 
                trace order; and]
                    (C) the attributes of the communications to 
                which the order applies, including the number 
                or other identifier and, if known, the location 
                of the telephone line or other facility to 
                which the pen register or trap and trace device 
                is to be attached or applied, and, in the case 
                of an order authorizing installation and use of 
                a trap and trace device under subsection 
                (a)(2), the geographic limits of the order; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Nondisclosure of Existence of Pen Register or a Trap 
and Trace Device.--An order authorizing or approving the 
installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace 
device shall direct that--
            (1) * * *
            (2) the person owning or leasing the line or other 
        facility to which the pen register or a trap and trace 
        device is attached[, or who has been ordered by the 
        court] or applied, or who is obligated by the order to 
        provide assistance to the applicant, not disclose the 
        existence of the pen register or trap and trace device 
        or the existence of the investigation to the listed 
        subscriber, or to any other person, unless or until 
        otherwise ordered by the court.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3124. Assistance in installation and use of a pen register or a 
                    trap and trace device

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) No Cause of Action Against a Provider Disclosing 
Information Under This Chapter.--No cause of action shall lie 
in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic 
communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or 
other specified persons for providing information, facilities, 
or assistance in accordance with [the terms of] a court order 
under this chapter or request pursuant to section 3125 of this 
title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3127. Definitions for chapter

    As used in this chapter--
            (1) the terms ``wire communication'', ``electronic 
        communication'', [and] ``electronic communication 
        service'', and ``contents'' have the meanings set forth 
        for such terms in section 2510 of this title;
            (2) the term ``court of competent jurisdiction'' 
        means--
                    [(A) a district court of the United States 
                (including a magistrate of such a court) or a 
                United States Court of Appeals; or]
                    (A) any district court of the United States 
                (including a magistrate judge of such a court) 
                or any United States court of appeals having 
                jurisdiction over the offense being 
                investigated; or
                    (B) a court of general criminal 
                jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law 
                of that State to enter orders authorizing the 
                use of a pen register or a trap and trace 
                device;
            (3) the term ``pen register'' means a device or 
        process which records or decodes [electronic or other 
        impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise 
        transmitted on the telephone line to which such device 
        or process is attached] dialing, routing, addressing, 
        or signaling information transmitted by an instrument 
        or facility from which a wire or electronic 
        communication is transmitted (but not including the 
        contents of such communication), but such term does not 
        include any device or process used by a provider or 
        customer of a wire or electronic communication service 
        for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, 
        for communications services provided by such provider 
        or any device or process used by a provider or customer 
        of a wire communication service for cost accounting or 
        other like purposes in the ordinary course of its 
        business;
            (4) the term ``trap and trace device'' means a 
        device or process which captures the incoming 
        electronic or other impulses which identify the 
        originating number [of an instrument or device from 
        which a wire or electronic communication was 
        transmitted;] or other dialing, routing, addressing, 
        and signaling information reasonably likely to identify 
        the source of a wire or electronic communication (but 
        not including the contents of such communication);

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3128. Civil action

    (a) Cause of Action.--Except as provided in section 
3124(d), any person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter 
may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which 
engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.
    (b) Relief.--In any action under this section, appropriate 
relief includes--
            (1) such preliminary and other equitable or 
        declaratory relief as may be appropriate;
            (2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive 
        damages in appropriate cases; and
            (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other 
        litigation costs reasonably incurred.
    (c) Damages.--In any action under this section, the court 
may assess as damages whichever is the greater of--
            (1) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the 
        plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a 
        result of the violation; or
            (2) statutory damages of $10,000.
    (d) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not 
be commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the 
claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the 
violation.
    (e) Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any disclosure or 
use by an investigative or law enforcement officer of 
information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a 
violation of this chapter for purposes of section 3128(a).
    (f) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, he or she shall report his or 
her conclusions and the reasons therefor to the Deputy 
Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (g) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        CHAPTER 213--LIMITATIONS

3281.  Capital offenses.
     * * * * * * *
[3286.  Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism 
          offenses.]
3286. Terrorism offenses.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism 
                    offenses

    [Notwithstanding section 3282, no person shall be 
prosecuted, tried, or punished for any non-capital offense 
involving a violation of section 32 (aircraft destruction), 
section 37 (airport violence), section 112 (assaults upon 
diplomats), section 351 (crimes against Congressmen or Cabinet 
officers), section 1116 (crimes against diplomats), section 
1203 (hostage taking), section 1361 (willful injury to 
government property), section 1751 (crimes against the 
President), section 2280 (maritime violence), section 2281 
(maritime platform violence), section 2332 (terrorist acts 
abroad against United States nationals), section 2332a (use of 
weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (acts of terrorism 
transcending national boundaries), or section 2340A (torture) 
of this title or section 46502, 46504, 46505, or 46506 of title 
49, unless the indictment is found or the information is 
instituted within 8 years after the offense was committed.]

Sec. 3286. Terrorism offenses

    (a) An indictment may be found or an information instituted 
at any time without limitation for any Federal terrorism 
offense or any of the following offenses:
            (1) A violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to 
        violate, section 32 (relating to destruction of 
        aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37(a)(1) (relating to 
        violence at international airports), 175 (relating to 
        biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical 
        weapons), 351(a)-(d) (relating to congressional, 
        cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and 
        kidnaping), 791 (relating to harboring terrorists), 831 
        (relating to nuclear materials), 844(f) or (i) when it 
        relates to bombing (relating to arson and bombing of 
        certain property), 1114(1) (relating to protection of 
        officers and employees of the United States), 1116, if 
        the offense involves murder (relating to murder or 
        manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or 
        internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to 
        hostage taking), 1751(a)-(d) (relating to Presidential 
        and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 
        2332(a)(1) (relating to certain homicides and other 
        violence against United States nationals occurring 
        outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use 
        of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to 
        acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of 
        this title.
            (2) Section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
        facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        (42 U.S.C. 2284);
            (3) Section 601 (relating to disclosure of 
        identities of covert agents) of the National Security 
        Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421).
            (4) Section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of 
        title 49.
    (b) An indictment may be found or an information instituted 
within 15 years after the offense was committed for any of the 
following offenses:
            (1) Section 175b (relating to biological weapons), 
        842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 930(c) 
        if it involves murder (relating to possessing a 
        dangerous weapon in a Federal facility), 956 (relating 
        to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign 
        government), 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(5)(A), or 1030(a)(7) 
        (relating to protection of computers), 1362 (relating 
        to destruction of communication lines, stations, or 
        systems), 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy 
        facility), 1992 (relating to trainwrecking), 2152 
        (relating to injury of fortifications, harbor defenses, 
        or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating to destruction 
        of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 
        2156 (relating to production of defective national 
        defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 
        (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 
        2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed 
        platforms), 2339A (relating to providing material 
        support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing 
        material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A 
        (relating to torture).
            (2) Any of the following provisions of title 49: 
        the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to 
        assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), 
        section 46505(b)(3), (relating to explosive or 
        incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by 
        means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if 
        homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 
        60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or 
        hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         CHAPTER 227--SENTENCES

SUBCHAPTER A--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3559. Sentencing classification of offenses

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Authorized Terms of Imprisonment for Terrorism 
Crimes.--A person convicted of any Federal terrorism offense 
may be sentenced to imprisonment for any term of years or for 
life, notwithstanding any maximum term of imprisonment 
specified in the law describing the offense. The authorization 
of imprisonment under this subsection is supplementary to, and 
does not limit, the availability of any other penalty 
authorized by the law describing the offense, including the 
death penalty, and does not limit the applicability of any 
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, including any mandatory 
life term, provided by the law describing the offense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER D--IMPRISONMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3583. Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (j) Supervised Release Terms for Terrorism Offenses.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized terms of 
supervised release for any Federal terrorism offense are any 
term of years or life.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

 TITLE I--ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 
                          INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

     * * * * * * *

     TITLE IV--PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN 
                          INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

401. Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
Sec. 407. Penalties.
Sec. 408. Civil liability.

 [TITLE V--ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                                PURPOSES

[501. Definitions.
[502. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 
          international terrorism investigations.
[503. Congressional oversight.]

  TITLE V--ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                                PURPOSES

Sec.
501. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 
          international terrorism investigations.
502. Congressional oversight.
     * * * * * * *

 TITLE I--ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        application for an order

      Sec. 104. (a) Each application for an order approving 
electronic surveillance under this title shall be made by a 
Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge 
having jurisdiction under section 103. Each application shall 
require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his 
finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such 
application as set forth in this title. It shall include--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) a certification or certifications by the 
        Assistant to the President for National Security 
        Affairs or an executive branch official or officials 
        designated by the President from among those executive 
        officers employed in the area of national security or 
        defense and appointed by the President with the advice 
        and consent of the Senate--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) [that the] that a significant purpose 
                of the surveillance is to obtain foreign 
                intelligence information;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          issuance of an order

      Sec. 105. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) An order approving an electronic surveillance under 
this section shall--
            (1)  * * *
            (2) direct--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) that, upon the request of the 
                applicant, a specified communication or other 
                common carrier, landlord, custodian, or other 
                specified person, or, in circumstances where 
                the Court finds that the actions of the target 
                of the electronic surveillance may have the 
                effect of thwarting the identification of a 
                specified person, such other persons, furnish 
                the applicant forthwith all information, 
                facilities, or technical assistance necessary 
                to accomplish the electronic surveillance in 
                such a manner as will protect its secrecy and 
                produce a minimum of interference with the 
                services that such carrier, landlord, 
                custodian, or other person is providing that 
                target of electronic surveillance;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e)(1) An order issued under this section may approve an 
electronic surveillance for the period necessary to achieve its 
purpose, or for ninety days, whichever is less, except that an 
order under this section shall approve an electronic 
surveillance targeted against a foreign power, as defined in 
section 101(a), (1), (2), or (3), or an agent of a foreign 
power, as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A), for the period 
specified in the application or for one year, whichever is 
less.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            civil liability

      Sec. 110. (a) Civil Action.--An aggrieved person, other 
than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined 
in section 101 (a) or (b)(1)(A), respectively, who has been 
subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom 
information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person 
has been disclosed or used in violation of section 109 shall 
have a cause of action against any person or entity who 
committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--
            [(a)] (1) actual damages, but not less than 
        liquidated damages of [$1,000] $10,000 or $100 per day 
        for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
            [(b)] (2) punitive damages; and
            [(c)] (3) reasonable attorney's fees and other 
        investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
    (b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not 
be commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the 
claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the 
violation.
    (c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, the head shall report 
conclusions for the determination and the reasons therefor to 
the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   TITLE III--PHYSICAL SEARCHES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

    Sec. 303. (a) Each application for an order approving a 
physical search under this title shall be made by a Federal 
officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Each application shall 
require the approval of the Attorney General based upon the 
Attorney General's finding that it satisfies the criteria and 
requirements for such application as set forth in this title. 
Each application shall include--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (7) a certification or certifications by the 
        Assistant to the President for National Security 
        Affairs or an executive branch official or officials 
        designated by the President from among those executive 
        branch officers employed in the area of national 
        security or defense and appointed by the President, by 
        and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) [that the] that a significant purpose 
                of the search is to obtain foreign intelligence 
                information;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER

    Sec. 304. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) An order issued under this section may approve a 
physical search for the period necessary to achieve its 
purpose, or for [forty-five] 90 days, whichever is less, except 
that an order under this section shall approve a physical 
search targeted against a foreign power, as defined in 
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 101(a), or an agent of a 
foreign power, as defined in section 101(b)(1)(A), for the 
period specified in the application or for one year, whichever 
is less.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 308. (a) Civil Action.--An aggrieved person, other 
than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined 
in section 101 (a) or (b)(1)(A), respectively, of this Act, 
whose premises, property, information, or material has been 
subjected to a physical search within the United States or 
about whom information obtained by such a physical search has 
been disclosed or used in violation of section 307 shall have a 
cause of action against any person or entity who committed such 
violation and shall be entitled to recover--
            (1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated 
        damages of [$1,000] $10,000 or $100 per day for each 
        day of violation, whichever is greater;
            (2) punitive damages; and
            (3) reasonable attorney's fees and other 
        investigative and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
    (b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not 
be commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the 
claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the 
violation.
    (c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, the head shall report the 
conclusions for the determination and the reasons therefor to 
the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE IV--PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN 
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 pen registers and trap and trace devices for foreign intelligence and 
                 international terrorism investigations

    Sec. 402. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Each application under this section shall require the 
approval of the Attorney General, or a designated attorney for 
the Government, and shall include--
            (1) the identity of the Federal officer seeking to 
        use the pen register or trap and trace device covered 
        by the application; and
            (2) a certification by the applicant that the 
        information likely to be obtained from the telephone 
        line to which the pen register or trap and trace device 
        is to be attached, or the communication instrument or 
        device to be covered by the pen register or trap and 
        trace device is relevant to an ongoing foreign 
        intelligence or international terrorism investigation 
        being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
        under guidelines approved by the Attorney General[; 
        and].
            [(3) information which demonstrates that there is 
        reason to believe that the telephone line to which the 
        pen register or trap and trace device is to be 
        attached, or the communication instrument or device to 
        be covered by the pen register or trap and trace 
        device, has been or is about to be used in 
        communication with--
                    [(A) an individual who is engaging or has 
                engaged in international terrorism or 
                clandestine intelligence activities that 
                involve or may involve a violation of the 
                criminal laws of the United States; or
                    [(B) a foreign power or agent of a foreign 
                power under circumstances giving reason to 
                believe that the communication concerns or 
                concerned international terrorism or 
                clandestine intelligence activities that 
                involve or may involve a violation of the 
                criminal laws of the United States.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                               penalties

    Sec. 407. (a) Prohibited activities.--A person is guilty of 
an offense if the person intentionally--
            (1) installs or uses a pen register or trap and 
        trace device under color of law except as authorized by 
        statute; or
            (2) discloses or uses information obtained under 
        color of law by using a pen register or trap and trace 
        device, knowing or having reason to know that the 
        information was obtained through using a pen register 
        or trap and trace device not authorized by statute.
    (b) Defense.--It is a defense to a prosecution under 
subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or 
investigative officer engaged in the course of his official 
duties and the pen register or trap and trace device was 
authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or 
court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
    (c) Penalties.--An offense described in this section is 
punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment 
for not more than five years, or both.
    (d) Federal Jurisdiction .--There is Federal jurisdiction 
over an offense under this section if the person committing the 
offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the 
time the offense was committed.

                            civil liability

    Sec. 408. (a) Civil Action.--An aggrieved person, other 
than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined 
in section 101(a) or (b)(1)(A), respectively, who has been 
subjected to a pen register or trap and trace device or about 
whom information obtained by a pen register or trap and trace 
device has been disclosed or used in violation of section 407 
shall have a cause of action against any person or entity who 
committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover--
            (1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated 
        damages of $10,000, whichever is greater;
            (2) punitive damages; and
            (3) reasonable attorney's fees and other 
        investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
    (b) Limitation.--A civil action under this section may not 
be commenced later than 2 years after the date upon which the 
claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the 
violation.
    (c) Administrative Discipline.--If a court determines that 
the United States or any agency or bureau thereof has violated 
any provision of this section and the court finds that the 
circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
whether or not an officer or employee thereof acted willfully 
or intentionally with respect to the violation, the agency or 
bureau shall promptly initiate a proceeding to determine 
whether or not disciplinary action is warranted against the 
officer or employee who was responsible for the violation. In 
such case, if the head of the agency or bureau determines 
discipline is not appropriate, the head shall report the 
conclusions for the determination and the reasons therefor to 
the Deputy Inspector General for Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (d) Actions Against the United States.--Any action against 
the United States shall be conducted under the procedures of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act. Any award against the United 
States shall be deducted from the budget of the appropriate 
agency or bureau employing or managing the officer or employee 
who was responsible for the violation.

 TITLE V--ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                                PURPOSES

                              [definitions

    [Sec. 501. As used in this title:
            [(1) The terms ``foreign power'', ``agent of a 
        foreign power'', ``foreign intelligence information'', 
        ``international terrorism'', and ``Attorney General'' 
        shall have the same meanings as in section 101 of this 
        Act.
            [(2) The term ``common carrier'' means any person 
        or entity transporting people or property by land, 
        rail, water, or air for compensation.
            [(3) The term ``physical storage facility'' means 
        any business or entity that provides space for the 
        storage of goods or materials, or services related to 
        the storage of goods or materials, to the public or any 
        segment thereof.
            [(4) The term ``public accommodation facility'' 
        means any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment 
        that provides lodging to transient guests.
            [(5) The term ``vehicle rental facility'' means any 
        person or entity that provides vehicles for rent, 
        lease, loan, or other similar use to the public or any 
        segment thereof.

   [access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 
                 international terrorism investigations

    [Sec. 502. (a) The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall 
be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an 
application for an order authorizing a common carrier, public 
accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle 
rental facility to release records in its possession for an 
investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or an 
investigation concerning international terrorism which 
investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation under such guidelines as the Attorney General 
approves pursuant to Executive Order No. 12333, or a successor 
order.
    [(b) Each application under this section--
            [(1) shall be made to--
                    [(A) a judge of the court established by 
                section 103(a) of this Act; or
                    [(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under 
                chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who 
                is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of 
                the United States to have the power to hear 
                applications and grant orders for the release 
                of records under this section on behalf of a 
                judge of that court; and
            [(2) shall specify that--
                    [(A) the records concerned are sought for 
                an investigation described in subsection (a); 
                and
                    [(B) there are specific and articulable 
                facts giving reason to believe that the person 
                to whom the records pertain is a foreign power 
                or an agent of a foreign power.
    [(c)(1) Upon application made pursuant to this section, the 
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as 
modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds 
that the application satisfies the requirements of this 
section.
    [(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that 
it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in sub-
section (a).
    [(d)(1) Any common carrier, public accommodation facility, 
physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility shall 
comply with an order under subsection (c).
    [(2) No common carrier, public accommodation facility, 
physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility, or 
officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any 
person (other than those officers, agents, or employees of such 
common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage 
facility, or vehicle rental facility necessary to fulfill the 
requirement to disclose information to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation under this section) that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation has sought or obtained records pursuant to an 
order under this section.]

    access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 
                 international terrorism investigations

    Sec. 501. (a) In any investigation to gather foreign 
intelligence information or an investigation concerning 
international terrorism, such investigation being conducted by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation under such guidelines as 
the Attorney General may approve pursuant to Executive Order 
No. 12333 (or a successor order), the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose 
rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) 
may make an application for an order requiring the production 
of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, 
documents, and other items) that are relevant to the 
investigation.
    (b) Each application under this section--
            (1) shall be made to--
                    (A) a judge of the court established by 
                section 103(a) of this Act; or
                    (B) a United States magistrate judge under 
                chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who 
                is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of 
                the United States to have the power to hear 
                applications and grant orders for the release 
                of records under this section on behalf of a 
                judge of that court; and
            (2) shall specify that the records concerned are 
        sought for an investigation described in subsection 
        (a).
    (c)(1) Upon application made pursuant to this section, the 
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested requiring the 
production the tangible things sought if the judge finds that 
the application satisfies the requirements of this section.
    (2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that 
it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in 
subsection (a).
    (d) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things 
under an order issued pursuant to this section shall not be 
liable to any other person for such production. Such production 
shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in 
any other proceeding or context.

                        congressional oversight

    Sec. [503.] 502. (a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney 
General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select 
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests 
for records under this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

              SECTION 624 OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

                          (Public Law 90-321)

Sec. 624. Disclosures to FBI for counterintelligence purposes

    (a) Identity of Financial Institutions.--Notwithstanding 
section 604 or any other provision of this title, a consumer 
reporting agency shall furnish to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation the names and addresses of all financial 
institutions (as that term is defined in section 1101 of the 
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978) at which a consumer 
maintains or has maintained an account, to the extent that 
information is in the files of the agency, when presented with 
a written request for that information, signed by the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the Director's 
designee, which certifies compliance with this section. The 
Director or the Director's designee may make such a 
certification only if the Director or the Director's designee 
has determined in [writing that--
            [(1) such information is necessary for the conduct 
        of an authorized foreign counterintelligence 
        investigation; and
            [(2) there are specific and articulable facts 
        giving reason to believe that the consumer--
                    [(A) is a foreign power (as defined in 
                section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence 
                Surveillance Act of 1978) or a person who is 
                not a United States person (as defined in such 
                section 101) and is an official of a foreign 
                power; or
                    [(B) is an agent of a foreign power and is 
                engaging or has engaged in an act of 
                international terrorism (as that term is 
                defined in section 101(c) of the Foreign 
                Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) or 
                clandestine intelligence activities that 
                involve or may involve a violation of criminal 
                statutes of the United States.]
writing that such information is necessary for the conduct of 
an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation.
    (b) Identifying Information.--Notwithstanding the 
provisions of section 604 or any other provision of this title, 
a consumer reporting agency shall furnish identifying 
information respecting a consumer, limited to name, address, 
former addresses, places of employment, or former places of 
employment, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation when 
presented with a written request, signed by the Director or the 
Director's designee, which certifies compliance with this 
subsection. The Director or the Director's designee may make 
such a certification only if the Director or the Director's 
designee has determined in [writing that--
            [(1) such information is necessary to the conduct 
        of an authorized counterintelligence investigation; and
            [(2) there is information giving reason to believe 
        that the consumer has been, or is about to be, in 
        contact with a foreign power or an agent of a foreign 
        power (as defined in section 101 of the Foreign 
        Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).]
writing that such information is necessary for the conduct of 
an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation.
    (c) Court Order for Disclosure of Consumer Reports.--
Notwithstanding section 604 or any other provision of this 
title, if requested in writing by the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, or a designee of the Director, a court 
may issue an order ex parte directing a consumer reporting 
agency to furnish a consumer report to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, upon a showing in [camera that--
            [(1) the consumer report is necessary for the 
        conduct of an authorized foreign counterintelligence 
        investigation; and
            [(2) there are specific and articulable facts 
        giving reason to believe that the consumer whose 
        consumer report is sought--
                    [(A) is an agent of a foreign power, and
                    [(B) is engaging or has engaged in an act 
                of international terrorism (as that term is 
                defined in section 101(c) of the Foreign 
                Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) or 
                clandestine intelligence activities that 
                involve or may involve a violation of criminal 
                statutes of the United States.]
camera that the consumer report is necessary for the conduct of 
an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

     SECTION 203 OF THE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT

                          grant of authorities

    Sec. 203. (a)(1) At the times and to the extent specified 
in section 202, the President may, under such regulations as he 
may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or 
otherwise--
            (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit--
                    (i)  * * *
                    (ii) transfers of credit or payments 
                between, by, through, or to any banking 
                institution, to the extent that such transfers 
                or payments involve any interest of any foreign 
                country or a national thereof, or
                    [(iii) the importing or exporting of 
                currency or securities; and]
                    (iii) the importing or exporting of 
                currency or securities,
        by any person, or with respect to any property, subject 
        to the jurisdiction of the United States;
            (B) investigate, block during the pendency of an 
        investigation for a period of not more than 90 days 
        (which may be extended by an additional 60 days if the 
        President determines that such blocking is necessary to 
        carry out the purposes of this Act), regulate, direct 
        and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any 
        acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, 
        withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation 
        of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or 
        privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, 
        any property in which any foreign country or a national 
        thereof has any [interest;] interest, by any person, or 
        with respect to any property, subject to the 
        jurisdiction of the United States; and
[by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States.]
            (C) when a statute has been enacted authorizing the 
        use of force by United States armed forces against a 
        foreign country, foreign organization, or foreign 
        national, or when the United States has been subject to 
        an armed attack by a foreign country, foreign 
        organization, or foreign national, confiscate any 
        property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
        States, of any foreign country, foreign organization, 
        or foreign national against whom United States armed 
        forces may be used pursuant to such statute or, in the 
        case of an armed attack against the United States, that 
        the President determines has planned, authorized, 
        aided, or engaged in such attack; and
                    (i) all right, title, and interest in any 
                property so confiscated shall vest when, as, 
                and upon the terms directed by the President, 
                in such agency or person as the President may 
                designate from time to time,
                    (ii) upon such terms and conditions as the 
                President may prescribe, such interest or 
                property shall be held, used, administered, 
                liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in 
                the interest of and for the benefit of the 
                United States, except that the proceeds of any 
                such liquidation or sale, or any cash assets, 
                shall be segregated from other United States 
                Government funds and shall be used only 
                pursuant to a statute authorizing the 
                expenditure of such proceeds or assets, and
                    (iii) such designated agency or person may 
                perform any and all acts incident to the 
                accomplishment or furtherance of these 
                purposes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                            Title I--General

Sec. 101.  Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 105.  Liaison with internal security officers.]
Sec. 105.  Liaison with internal security officers and data exchange.
     * * * * * * *

                          Title II--Immigration

     * * * * * * *

     chapter 4--inspection, apprehension, examination, exclusion, and 
                                 removal

     * * * * * * *
Sec. 236A.  Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; 
          judicial review.

TITLE I--GENERAL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

       liaison with internal security officers and data exchange

    Sec. 105. (a) Liaison With Internal Security Officers.--The 
Commissioner and the Administrator shall have authority to 
maintain direct and continuous liaison with the Directors of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central 
Intelligence Agency and with other internal security officers 
of the Government for the purpose of obtaining and exchanging 
information for use in enforcing the provisions of this Act in 
the interest of [the internal security of] the internal and 
border security of the United States. The Commissioner and the 
Administrator shall maintain direct and continuous liaison with 
each other with a view to a coordinated, uniform, and efficient 
administration of this Act, and all other immigration and 
nationality laws.
    (b) Criminal History Record Information.--The Attorney 
General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
shall provide the Secretary of State and the Commissioner 
access to the criminal history record information contained in 
the National Crime Information Center's Interstate 
Identification Index, Wanted Persons File, and to any other 
files maintained by the National Crime Information Center that 
may be mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and the 
official to be provided access, for the purpose of determining 
whether a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a 
criminal history record indexed in any such file. Such access 
shall be provided by means of extracts of the records for 
placement in the Department of State's automated visa lookout 
database or other appropriate database, and shall be provided 
without any fee or charge. The Director of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation shall provide periodic updates of the extracts 
at intervals mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and 
the official provided access. Upon receipt of such updated 
extracts, the receiving official shall make corresponding 
updates to the official's databases and destroy previously 
provided extracts. Such access to any extract shall not be 
construed to entitle the Secretary of State to obtain the full 
content of the corresponding automated criminal history record. 
To obtain the full content of a criminal history record, the 
Secretary of State shall submit the applicant's fingerprints 
and any appropriate fingerprint processing fee authorized by 
law to the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    (c) Reconsideration.--The provision of the extracts 
described in subsection (b) may be reconsidered by the Attorney 
General and the receiving official upon the development and 
deployment of a more cost-effective and efficient means of 
sharing the information.
    (d) Regulations.--For purposes of administering this 
section, the Secretary of State shall, prior to receiving 
access to National Crime Information Center data, promulgate 
final regulations--
            (1) to implement procedures for the taking of 
        fingerprints; and
            (2) to establish the conditions for the use of the 
        information received from the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation, in order--
                    (A) to limit the redissemination of such 
                information;
                    (B) to ensure that such information is used 
                solely to determine whether to issue a visa to 
                an individual;
                    (C) to ensure the security, 
                confidentiality, and destruction of such 
                information; and
                    (D) to protect any privacy rights of 
                individuals who are subjects of such 
                information.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

Chapter 1--Selection System

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                 asylum

    Sec. 208. (a)  * * *
    (b) Conditions for Granting Asylum.--
            (1)  * * *
            (2) Exceptions.--
                    (A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
                apply to an alien if the Attorney General 
                determines that--
                            (i)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            (v) the alien is [inadmissible 
                        under] described in subclause (I), 
                        (II), (III), or (IV) of section 
                        212(a)(3)(B)(i) or [removable under] 
                        described in section 237(a)(4)(B) 
                        (relating to terrorist activity), 
                        unless, in the case only of an alien 
                        [inadmissible under] described in 
                        subclause (IV) of section 
                        212(a)(3)(B)(i), the Attorney General 
                        determines, in the Attorney General's 
                        discretion, that there are not 
                        reasonable grounds for regarding the 
                        alien as a danger to the security of 
                        the United States; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 Chapter 2--Qualifications for Admission of Aliens; Travel Control of 
Citizens and Aliens

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 general classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible 
               for admission; waivers of inadmissibility

      Sec. 212. (a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or 
Admission.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens 
who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are 
ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to 
the United States:
            (1)  * * *
            (2) Criminal and related grounds.--
                    (A)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (I) Money laundering.--Any alien--
                            (i) who a consular officer or the 
                        Attorney General knows, or has reason 
                        to believe, has engaged, is engaging, 
                        or seeks to enter the United States to 
                        engage, in an offense which is 
                        described in section 1956 of title 18, 
                        United States Code (relating to 
                        laundering of monetary instruments); or
                            (ii) who a consular officer or the 
                        Attorney General knows is, or has been, 
                        a knowing aider, abettor, assister, 
                        conspirator, or colluder with others in 
                        an offense which is described in such 
                        section;
                is inadmissible.
            (3) Security and related grounds.--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) Terrorist activities.--
                            (i) In general.--Any alien who--
                                    (I) has engaged in a 
                                terrorist activity[,];
                                    (II) a consular officer or 
                                the Attorney General 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 (iii))[,];
                                    (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 (iv)) of 
                                a foreign terrorist 
                                organization, as designated by 
                                the Secretary under section 
                                219, which the alien knows or 
                                should have known is a 
                                terrorist organization or]
                                    (IV) is a representative 
                                of--
                                            (a) a foreign 
                                        terrorist organization, 
                                        as designated by the 
                                        Secretary of State 
                                        under section 219; or
                                            (b) a political, 
                                        social, or other 
                                        similar group whose 
                                        public endorsement of 
                                        terrorist activity the 
                                        Secretary of State has 
                                        determined undermines 
                                        the efforts of the 
                                        United States to reduce 
                                        or eliminate terrorist 
                                        activities;
                                    (V) is a member of a 
                                foreign terrorist organization, 
                                as designated by the Secretary 
                                under section 219[,]; or
                                    (VI) has used the alien's 
                                prominence within a foreign 
                                state or the United States to 
                                endorse or espouse terrorist 
                                activity, or to persuade others 
                                to support terrorist activity 
                                or a terrorist organization, in 
                                a way that the Secretary of 
                                State has determined undermines 
                                the efforts of the United 
                                States to reduce or eliminate 
                                terrorist activities;
                        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.
                            (ii) Terrorist activity defined.--
                        As used in this Act, the term 
                        ``terrorist activity'' means any 
                        activity which is unlawful under the 
                        laws of the place where it is committed 
                        [(or which, if committed in the United 
                        States,] (or which, if it had been or 
                        were to be committed in the United 
                        States, would be unlawful under the 
                        laws of the United States or any State) 
                        and which involves any of the 
                        following:
                                    (I) The highjacking or 
                                sabotage of any conveyance 
                                (including an aircraft, vessel, 
                                or vehicle).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                    (V) The use of any--
                                            (a)  * * *
                                            (b) [explosive or 
                                        firearm] explosive, 
                                        firearm, or other 
                                        object (other than for 
                                        mere personal monetary 
                                        gain),
                                with intent to endanger, 
                                directly or indirectly, the 
                                safety of one or more 
                                individuals or to cause 
                                substantial damage to property.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            [(iii) Engage in terrorist activity 
                        defined.--As used in this Act, the term 
                        ``engage in terrorist activity'' means 
                        to commit, in an individual capacity or 
                        as a member of an organization, an act 
                        of terrorist activity or an act which 
                        the actor knows, or reasonably should 
                        know, affords material support to any 
                        individual, organization, or government 
                        in conducting a terrorist activity at 
                        any time, including any of the 
                        following acts:
                                    [(I) The preparation or 
                                planning of a terrorist 
                                activity.
                                    [(II) The gathering of 
                                information on potential 
                                targets for terrorist activity.
                                    [(III) The providing of any 
                                type of material support, 
                                including a safe house, 
                                transportation, communications, 
                                funds, false documentation or 
                                identification, weapons, 
                                explosives, or training, to any 
                                individual the actor knows or 
                                has reason to believe has 
                                committed or plans to commit a 
                                terrorist activity.
                                    [(IV) The soliciting of 
                                funds or other things of value 
                                for terrorist activity or for 
                                any terrorist organization.
                                    [(V) The solicitation of 
                                any individual for membership 
                                in a terrorist organization, 
                                terrorist government, or to 
                                engage in a terrorist 
                                activity.]
                            (iii) Engage in terrorist activity 
                        defined.--As used in this Act, the term 
                        ``engage in terrorist activity'' means, 
                        in an individual capacity or as a 
                        member of an organization--
                                    (I) to commit a terrorist 
                                activity;
                                    (II) to plan or prepare to 
                                commit a terrorist activity;
                                    (III) to gather information 
                                on potential targets for a 
                                terrorist activity;
                                    (IV) to solicit funds or 
                                other things of value for--
                                            (a) a terrorist 
                                        activity;
                                            (b) an organization 
                                        designated as a foreign 
                                        terrorist organization 
                                        under section 219; or
                                            (c) a terrorist 
                                        organization described 
                                        in clause (v)(II), but 
                                        only if the solicitor 
                                        knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, that the 
                                        solicitation would 
                                        further a terrorist 
                                        activity;
                                    (V) to solicit any 
                                individual--
                                            (a) to engage in 
                                        conduct otherwise 
                                        described in this 
                                        clause;
                                            (b) for membership 
                                        in a terrorist 
                                        government;
                                            (c) for membership 
                                        in an organization 
                                        designated as a foreign 
                                        terrorist organization 
                                        under section 219; or
                                            (d) for membership 
                                        in a terrorist 
                                        organization described 
                                        in clause (v)(II), but 
                                        only if the solicitor 
                                        knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, that the 
                                        solicitation would 
                                        further a terrorist 
                                        activity; 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, and radiological 
                                weapons), explosives, or 
                                training--
                                            (a) for the 
                                        commission of a 
                                        terrorist activity;
                                            (b) to any 
                                        individual who the 
                                        actor knows, or 
                                        reasonably should know, 
                                        has committed or plans 
                                        to commit a terrorist 
                                        activity;
                                            (c) to an 
                                        organization designated 
                                        as a foreign terrorist 
                                        organization under 
                                        section 219; or
                                            (d) to a terrorist 
                                        organization described 
                                        in clause (v)(II), but 
                                        only if the actor 
                                        knows, or reasonably 
                                        should know, that the 
                                        act would further a 
                                        terrorist activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            (v) Terrorist organization 
                        defined.--As used in this subparagraph, 
                        the term ``terrorist organization'' 
                        means--
                                    (I) an organization 
                                designated as a foreign 
                                terrorist organization under 
                                section 219; or
                                    (II) with regard to a group 
                                that is not an organization 
                                described in subclause (I), a 
                                group of 2 or more individuals, 
                                whether organized or not, which 
                                engages in, or which has a 
                                significant subgroup which 
                                engages in, the activities 
                                described in subclause (I), 
                                (II), or (III) of clause (iii).
                            (vi) Special rule for material 
                        support.--Clause (iii)(VI)(b) shall not 
                        be construed to include the affording 
                        of material support to an individual 
                        who committed or planned to commit a 
                        terrorist activity, if the alien 
                        establishes by clear and convincing 
                        evidence that such support was afforded 
                        only after such individual permanently 
                        and publicly renounced, rejected the 
                        use of, and had ceased to engage in, 
                        terrorist activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (F) Endangerment.--Any alien who the 
                Secretary of State, after consultation with the 
                Attorney General, or the Attorney General, 
                after consultation with the Secretary of State, 
                determines has been associated with a terrorist 
                organization and intends while in the United 
                States to engage solely, principally, or 
                incidentally in activities that could endanger 
                the welfare, safety, or security of the United 
                States is inadmissible.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

             designation of foreign terrorist organizations

    Sec. 219. (a) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--The [Secretary] official specified 
        under subsection (d) is authorized to designate an 
        organization as a foreign terrorist organization in 
        accordance with this subsection if the [Secretary] 
        official specified under subsection (d) finds that--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) the organization engages in terrorist 
                activity (as defined in section 
                [212(a)(3)(B));] 212(a)(3)(B)), engages in 
                terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of 
                the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
                Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or 
                retains the capability and intent to engage in 
                terrorist activity or to engage in terrorism 
                (as so defined); and
                    (C) the terrorist activity or terrorism of 
                the organization threatens the security of 
                United States nationals or the national 
                security of the United States.
            (2) Procedure.--
                    [(A) Notice.--Seven days before making a 
                designation under this subsection, the 
                Secretary shall, by classified communication--
                            [(i) notify the Speaker and 
                        Minority Leader of the House of 
                        Representatives, the President pro 
                        tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority 
                        Leader of the Senate, and the members 
                        of the relevant committees, in writing, 
                        of the intent to designate a foreign 
                        organization under this subsection, 
                        together with the findings made under 
                        paragraph (1) with respect to that 
                        organization, and the factual basis 
                        therefor; and
                            [(ii) seven days after such 
                        notification, publish the designation 
                        in the Federal Register.]
                    (A) Notice.--
                            (i) In general.--Seven days before 
                        a designation is made under this 
                        subsection, the Secretary of State 
                        shall, by classified communication, 
                        notify the Speaker and minority leader 
                        of the House of Representatives, the 
                        President pro tempore, majority leader, 
                        and minority leader of the Senate, the 
                        members of the relevant committees, and 
                        the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
                        writing, of the intent to designate a 
                        foreign organization under this 
                        subsection, together with the findings 
                        made under paragraph (1) with respect 
                        to that organization, and the factual 
                        basis therefor.
                            (ii) Publication of designation.--
                        The Secretary of State shall publish 
                        the designation in the Federal Register 
                        seven days after providing the 
                        notification under clause (i).
                    (B) Effect of designation.--
                            (i) For purposes of section 2339B 
                        of title 18, United States Code, a 
                        designation under this subsection shall 
                        take effect upon publication under 
                        subparagraph (A)(ii).
                            (ii) Any designation under this 
                        subsection shall cease to have effect 
                        upon an Act of Congress disapproving 
                        such designation.
                    (C) Freezing of assets.--Upon notification 
                under [paragraph (2),] subparagraph (A)(i), the 
                Secretary of the Treasury may require United 
                States financial institutions possessing or 
                controlling any assets of any foreign 
                organization included in the notification to 
                block all financial transactions involving 
                those assets until further directive from 
                either the Secretary of the Treasury, Act of 
                Congress, or order of court.
            (3) Record.--
                    (A) In general.--In making a designation 
                under this subsection, the [Secretary] official 
                specified under subsection (d) shall create an 
                administrative record.
                    (B) Classified information.--The 
                [Secretary] official specified under subsection 
                (d) may consider classified information in 
                making a designation under this subsection. 
                Classified information shall not be subject to 
                disclosure for such time as it remains 
                classified, except that such information may be 
                disclosed to a court ex parte and in camera for 
                purposes of judicial review under subsection 
                [(c)] (b).
            (4) Period of designation.--
                    (A)  * * *
                    (B) Redesignation.--The [Secretary] 
                official specified under subsection (d) may 
                redesignate a foreign organization as a foreign 
                terrorist organization for an additional 2-year 
                period at the end of the 2-year period referred 
                to in subparagraph (A) (but not sooner than 60 
                days prior to the termination of such period) 
                upon a finding that the relevant circumstances 
                described in paragraph (1) still exist. The 
                official specified under subsection (d) may 
                also redesignate such organization at the end 
                of any 2-year redesignation period (but not 
                sooner than 60 days prior to the termination of 
                such period) for an additional 2-year period 
                upon a finding that the relevant circumstances 
                described in paragraph (1) still exist. Any 
                redesignation shall be effective immediately 
                following the end of the prior 2-year 
                designation or redesignation period unless a 
                different effective date is provided in such 
                redesignation. The procedural requirements of 
                paragraphs (2) and (3) shall apply to a 
                redesignation under this subparagraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) Revocation based on change in circumstances.--
                    (A) In general.--The [Secretary] official 
                specified under subsection (d) may revoke a 
                designation made under paragraph (1) or a 
                redesignation made under paragraph (4)(B) if 
                the [Secretary] official specified under 
                subsection (d) finds that--
                            (i) the circumstances that were the 
                        basis for the designation or 
                        redesignation have changed in such a 
                        manner as to warrant revocation [of the 
                        designation]; or
                            (ii) the national security of the 
                        United States warrants a revocation [of 
                        the designation].
                    (B) Procedure.--The procedural requirements 
                of paragraphs (2) [through (4)] and (3) shall 
                apply to a revocation under this paragraph.
                    (C) Effective date.--Any revocation shall 
                take effect on the date specified in the 
                revocation or upon publication in the Federal 
                Register if no effective date is specified.
            (7) Effect of revocation.--The revocation of a 
        designation under paragraph (5) or (6), or the 
        revocation of a redesignation under paragraph (6), 
        shall not affect any action or proceeding based on 
        conduct committed prior to the effective date of such 
        revocation.
            (8) Use of designation in trial or hearing.--If a 
        designation under this subsection has become effective 
        under paragraph [(1)(B),] (2)(B), or if a redesignation 
        under this subsection has become effective under 
        paragraph (4)(B) a defendant in a criminal action or an 
        alien in a removal proceeding shall not be permitted to 
        raise any question concerning the validity of the 
        issuance of such designation or redesignation as a 
        defense or an objection at any trial or hearing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
            (1)  * * *
            (2) the term ``national security'' means the 
        national defense, foreign relations, or economic 
        interests of the United States; and
            (3) the term ``relevant committees'' means the 
        Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence, and Foreign 
        Relations of the Senate and the Committees on the 
        Judiciary, Intelligence, and International Relations of 
        the House of Representatives[; and].
            [(4) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        State, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
        Treasury and the Attorney General.]
    (d) Implementation of Duties and Authorities.--
            (1) By secretary or attorney general.--Except as 
        otherwise provided in this subsection, the duties under 
        this section shall, and authorities under this section 
        may, be exercised by--
                    (A) the Secretary of State--
                            (i) after consultation with the 
                        Secretary of the Treasury and with the 
                        concurrence of the Attorney General; or
                            (ii) upon instruction by the 
                        President pursuant to paragraph (2); or
                    (B) the Attorney General--
                            (i) after consultation with the 
                        Secretary of the Treasury and with the 
                        concurrence of the Secretary of State; 
                        or
                            (ii) upon instruction by the 
                        President pursuant to paragraph (2).
            (2) Concurrence.--The Secretary of State and the 
        Attorney General shall each seek the other's 
        concurrence in accordance with paragraph (1). In any 
        case in which such concurrence is denied or withheld, 
        the official seeking the concurrence shall so notify 
        the President and shall request the President to make a 
        determination as to how the issue shall be resolved. 
        Such notification and request of the President may not 
        be made before the earlier of--
                    (A) the date on which a denial of 
                concurrence is received; or
                    (B) the end of the 60-day period beginning 
                on the date the concurrence was sought.
            (3) Exception.--It shall be the duty of the 
        Secretary of State to carry out the procedural 
        requirements of paragraphs (2)(A) and (6)(B) of 
        subsection (a) in all cases, including cases in which a 
        designation or revocation is initiated by the Attorney 
        General.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Chapter 3--Issuance of Entry Documents

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         applications for visas

    Sec. 222. (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) [The records] (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
the records of the Department of State and of diplomatic and 
consular offices of the United States pertaining to the 
issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United 
States shall be considered confidential and shall be used only 
for the formulation, amendment, administration, or enforcement 
of the immigration, nationality, and other laws of the [United 
States, except that in the discretion of the Secretary of State 
certified copies of such records may be made available to a 
court which certifies that the information contained in such 
records is needed by the court in the interest of the ends of 
justice in a case pending before the court.] United States.
    (2) In the discretion of the Secretary of State, certified 
copies of such records may be made available to a court which 
certifies that the information contained in such records is 
needed by the court in the interest of the ends of justice in a 
case pending before the court.
    (3)(A) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the 
Secretary of State may provide copies of records of the 
Department of State and of diplomatic and consular offices of 
the United States (including the Department of State's 
automated visa lookout database) pertaining to the issuance or 
refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States, or 
information contained in such records, to foreign governments 
if the Secretary determines that it is necessary and 
appropriate.
    (B) Such records and information may be provided on a case-
by-case basis for the purpose of preventing, investigating, or 
punishing acts of terrorism. General access to records and 
information may be provided under an agreement to limit the use 
of such records and information to the purposes described in 
the preceding sentence.
    (C) The Secretary of State shall make any determination 
under this paragraph in consultation with any Federal agency 
that compiled or provided such records or information.
    (D) To the extent possible, such records and information 
shall be made available to foreign governments on a reciprocal 
basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   Chapter 4--Inspection, Apprehension, Examination, Exclusion, and 
Removal

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

 mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial 
                                 review

    Sec. 236A. (a) Detention of Terrorist Aliens.--
            (1) Custody.--The Attorney General shall take into 
        custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
            (2) Release.--Except as provided in paragraphs (5) 
        and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of 
        such an alien until the alien is removed from the 
        United States or found not to be inadmissible or 
        deportable, as the case may be. Except as provided in 
        paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained 
        irrespective of any relief from removal for which the 
        alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal 
        granted the alien, until the Attorney General 
        determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may 
        be certified under paragraph (3).
            (3) Certification.--The Attorney General may 
        certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney 
        General has reasonable grounds to believe that the 
        alien--
                    (A) is described in section 
                212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 
                212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 
                237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
                    (B) is engaged in any other activity that 
                endangers the national security of the United 
                States.
            (4) Nondelegation.--The Attorney General may 
        delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) 
        only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy 
        Attorney General may not delegate such authority.
            (5) Commencement of proceedings.--The Attorney 
        General shall place an alien detained under paragraph 
        (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien 
        with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after 
        the commencement of such detention. If the requirement 
        of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the 
        Attorney General shall release the alien.
            (6) Limitation on indefinite detention.--An alien 
        detained under paragraph (1) who has been ordered 
        removed based on one or more of the grounds of 
        inadmissibility or deportability referred to in 
        paragraph (3)(A), who has not been removed within the 
        removal period specified under section 241(a)(1)(A), 
        and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably 
        foreseeable future, may be detained for additional 
        periods of up to six months if the Attorney General 
        demonstrates that the release of the alien will not 
        protect the national security of the United States or 
        adequately ensure the safety of the community or any 
        person.
    (b) Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review.--Judicial review of 
any action or decision relating to this section (including 
judicial review of the merits of a determination made under 
subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas 
corpus proceedings initiated in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, including section 2241 of title 28, United 
States Code, except as provided in the preceding sentence, no 
court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus 
petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 237. (a) Classes of Deportable Aliens.--Any alien 
(including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United 
States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be 
removed if the alien is within one or more of the following 
classes of deportable aliens:
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Security and related grounds.--
                    (A)  * * *
                    [(B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien who 
                has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after 
                admission engages in any terrorist activity (as 
                defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii)) is 
                deportable.]
                    (B) Terrorist activities.--Any alien is 
                deportable who--
                            (i) has engaged, is engaged, or at 
                        any time after admission engages in 
                        terrorist activity (as defined in 
                        section 212(a)(3)(B)(iii));
                            (ii) is a representative (as 
                        defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)) 
                        of--
                                    (I) a foreign terrorist 
                                organization, as designated by 
                                the Secretary of State under 
                                section 219; or
                                    (II) a political, social, 
                                or other similar group whose 
                                public endorsement of terrorist 
                                activity--
                                            (a) is intended and 
                                        likely to incite or 
                                        produce imminent 
                                        lawless action; and
                                            (b) has been 
                                        determined by the 
                                        Secretary of State to 
                                        undermine the efforts 
                                        of the United States to 
                                        reduce or eliminate 
                                        terrorist activities; 
                                        or
                            (iii) has used the alien's 
                        prominence within a foreign state or 
                        the United States--
                                    (I) to endorse, in a manner 
                                that is intended and likely to 
                                incite or produce imminent 
                                lawless action and that has 
                                been determined by the 
                                Secretary of State to undermine 
                                the efforts of the United 
                                States to reduce or eliminate 
                                terrorist activities, terrorist 
                                activity; or
                                    (II) to persuade others, in 
                                a manner that is intended and 
                                likely to incite or produce 
                                imminent lawless action and 
                                that has been determined by the 
                                Secretary of State to undermine 
                                the efforts of the United 
                                States to reduce or eliminate 
                                terrorist activities, to 
                                support terrorist activity or a 
                                terrorist organization (as 
                                defined in section 
                                212(a)(3)(B)(v)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

      SECTION 641 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT 
                       RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996

SEC. 641. PROGRAM TO COLLECT INFORMATION RELATING TO NONIMMIGRANT 
                    FOREIGN STUDENTS AND OTHER EXCHANGE PROGRAM 
                    PARTICIPANTS.

    (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Funding.--
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Amount and use of fees.--
                    (A) Establishment of amount.--The Attorney 
                General shall establish the amount of the fee 
                to be imposed on, and collected from, an alien 
                under paragraph (1). Except as provided in 
                subsection (g)(2), the fee imposed on any 
                individual may not exceed $100. The amount of 
                the fee shall be based on the Attorney 
                General's estimate of the cost per alien of 
                conducting the information collection program 
                described in this section, except that, in the 
                case of an alien admitted under section 
                101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and 
                Nationality Act as an au pair, camp counselor, 
                or participant in a summer work travel program, 
                the fee shall not exceed $40, except that, in 
                the case of an alien admitted under section 
                101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and 
                Nationality Act as an au pair, camp counselor, 
                or participant in a summer work travel program, 
                the fee shall not exceed $35. In the case of an 
                alien who is a national of a country, the 
                government of which the Secretary of State has 
                determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of 
                the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
                U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly 
                provided support for acts of international 
                terrorism, the Attorney General may impose on, 
                and collect from, the alien a fee that is 
                greater than that imposed on other aliens 
                described in paragraph (3).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Joint Report.--[Not later than 4 years after the 
commencement of the program established under subsection (a),] 
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the 
PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
State, and the Secretary of Education shall jointly submit to 
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a report on the operations of the program and 
the feasibility of expanding the program to cover the nationals 
of all countries.
    (g) Worldwide Applicability of the Program.--
            (1) Expansion of program.--Not later than [12 
        months] 120 days after the submission of the report 
        required by subsection (f ), the Attorney General, in 
        consultation with the Secretary of State and the 
        Secretary of Education, shall commence expansion of the 
        program to cover the nationals of all countries.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Data Exchange.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Attorney General shall provide to the Secretary of 
State and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
the information collected under subsection (a)(1).
    [(h)] (i) Definitions.--As used in this section:
            (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                  FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                    III. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION

Rule 6. The Grand Jury

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Recording and Disclosure of Proceedings.
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Exceptions.
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this 
                rule of matters occurring before the grand jury 
                may also be made--
                            (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                            (iii) when the disclosure is made 
                        by an attorney for the government to 
                        another federal grand jury; [or]
                            (iv) when permitted by a court at 
                        the request of an attorney for the 
                        government, upon a showing that such 
                        matters may disclose a violation of 
                        state criminal law, to an appropriate 
                        official of a state or subdivision of a 
                        state for the purpose of enforcing such 
                        law[.]; or
                            (v) when permitted by a court at 
                        the request of an attorney for the 
                        government, upon a showing that the 
                        matters pertain to international or 
                        domestic terrorism (as defined in 
                        section 2331 of title 18, United States 
                        Code) or national security, to any 
                        Federal law enforcement, intelligence, 
                        national security, national defense, 
                        protective, immigration personnel, or 
                        to the President or Vice President of 
                        the United States, for the performance 
                        of official duties.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

IX. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Rule 41. Search and Seizure

    (a) Authority To Issue Warrant. Upon the request of a 
federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the 
government, a search warrant authorized by this rule may be 
issued (1) by a federal magistrate judge, or a state court of 
record within the federal district, for a search of property or 
for a person within the district and (2) by a federal 
magistrate judge for a search of property or for a person 
either within or outside the district if the property or person 
is within the district when the warrant is sought but might 
move outside the district before the warrant is executed and 
(3) in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international 
terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of title 18, United 
States Code), by a Federal magistrate judge in any district 
court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of 
such court), or any United States Court of Appeals, having 
jurisdiction over the offense being investigated, for a search 
of property or for a person within or outside the district.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

     SECTION 3 OF THE DNA ANALYSIS BACKLOG ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000

SEC. 3. COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM 
                    CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFENDERS.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Qualifying Federal Offenses.--(1) The offenses that 
shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying 
Federal offenses are the following offenses under title 18, 
United States Code, as determined by the Attorney General:
            (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (G) Any Federal terrorism offense (as defined in 
        section 25 of title 18, United States Code).
            [(G)] (H) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any 
        of the above offenses.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

             STATE DEPARTMENT BASIC AUTHORITIES ACT OF 1956

TITLE I--BASIC AUTHORITIES GENERALLY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 36. DEPARTMENT OF STATE REWARDS PROGRAM.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Rewards Authorized.--In the sole discretion of the 
Secretary (except as provided in subsection (c)(2)) and in 
consultation, as appropriate, with the Attorney General, the 
Secretary may pay a reward to any individual who furnishes 
information leading to--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) the arrest or conviction in any country of any 
        individual aiding or abetting in the commission of an 
        act described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); [or]
            (5) the prevention, frustration, or favorable 
        resolution of an act described in paragraph (1), (2), 
        or (3)[.], including by dismantling an organization in 
        whole or significant part; or
            (6) the identification or location of an individual 
        who holds a leadership position in a terrorist 
        organization.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Funding.--
            (1) * * *
            [(2) Limitation.--No amount of funds may be 
        appropriated under paragraph (1) which, when added to 
        the unobligated balance of amounts previously 
        appropriated to carry out this section, would cause 
        such amounts to exceed $15,000,000.
            [(3) Allocation of funds.--To the maximum extent 
        practicable, funds made available to carry out this 
        section should be distributed equally for the purpose 
        of preventing acts of international terrorism and for 
        the purpose of preventing international narcotics 
        trafficking.]
            [(4)] (2) Period of availability.--Amounts 
        appropriated under paragraph (1) shall remain available 
        until expended.
    (e) Limitations and Certification.--
            [(1) Maximum amount.--No reward paid under this 
        section may exceed $5,000,000.]
            (1) Amount of award.--
                    (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
                no reward paid under this section may exceed 
                $10,000,000.
                    (B) The Secretary of State may authorize 
                the payment of an award not to exceed 
                $25,000,000 if the Secretary determines that 
                payment of an award exceeding the amount under 
                subparagraph (A) is important to the national 
                interest of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                             special agents

    Sec. 37. (a) General Authority.--Under such regulations as 
the Secretary of State may prescribe, special agents of the 
Department of State and the Foreign Service may--
            (1) * * *
            [(2) For the purpose of conducting such 
        investigation--
                    [(A) obtain and execute search and arrest 
                warrants,
                    [(B) make arrests without warrant for any 
                offense concerning passport or visa issuance or 
                use of the special agent has reasonable grounds 
                to believe that the person has committed or is 
                committing such offense, and
                    [(C) obtain and serve subpoenas and 
                summonses issued under the authority of the 
                United States;]
            (2) in the course of performing the functions set 
        forth in paragraphs (1) and (3), obtain and execute 
        search and arrest warrants, as well as obtain and serve 
        subpoenas and summonses, issued under the authority of 
        the United States;
            (3) protect and perform protective functions 
        directly related to maintaining the security and safety 
        of--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (F) an individual who has been designated 
                by the President or President-elect to serve as 
                Secretary of State, prior to that individual's 
                appointment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(5) arrest without warrant any person for a 
        violation of section 111, 112, 351, 970, or 1028 , of 
        title 18, United States Code--
                    [(A) in the case of a felony violation, if 
                the special agent has reasonable grounds to 
                believe that such person--
                            [(i) has committed or is committing 
                        such violation; and
                            [(ii) is in or is fleeing from the 
                        immediate area of such violation; and
                    [(B) in the case of a felony or misdemeanor 
                violation, if the violation is committed in the 
                presence of the special agent.]
            (5) in the course of performing the functions set 
        forth in paragraphs (1) and (3), make arrests without 
        warrant for any offense against the United States 
        committed in the presence of the special agent, or for 
        any felony cognizable under the laws of the United 
        States if the special agent has reasonable grounds to 
        believe that the person to be arrested has committed or 
        is committing such felony.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Interference With Agents.--Whoever knowingly and 
willfully obstructs, resists, or interferes with a Federal law 
enforcement agent engaged in the performance of the protective 
functions authorized by this section shall be fined under title 
18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    (e) Persons Under Protection of Special Agents.--Whoever 
engages in any conduct--
            (1) directed against an individual entitled to 
        protection under this section, and
            (2) which would constitute a violation of section 
        112 or 878 of title 18, United States Code, if such 
        individual were a foreign official, an official guest, 
        or an internationally protected person, shall be 
        subject to the same penalties as are provided for such 
        conduct directed against an individual subject to 
        protection under such section of title 18.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                     INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
Subtitle F--Procedure and Administration

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 61--INFORMATION AND RETURNS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subchapter B--Miscellaneous Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 6103. CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF RETURNS AND RETURN 
                    INFORMATION.

    (a) General Rule.--Returns and return information shall be 
confidential, and except as authorized by this title--
            (1) * * *
            (2) no officer or employee of any State, any local 
        law enforcement agency receiving information under 
        subsection (i)(7)(A), any local child support 
        enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a 
        program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had 
        access to returns or return information under this 
        section, and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i) Disclosure to Federal Officers or Employees for 
Administration of Federal Laws not Relating to Tax 
Administration.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Disclosure of return information to apprise 
        appropriate officials of criminal or terrorist 
        activities or emergency circumstances.--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) Terrorist activities, etc.--
                            (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in paragraph (6), the Secretary may 
                        disclose in writing return information 
                        (other than taxpayer return 
                        information) that may be related to a 
                        terrorist incident, threat, or activity 
                        to the extent necessary to apprise the 
                        head of the appropriate Federal law 
                        enforcement agency responsible for 
                        investigating or responding to such 
                        terrorist incident, threat, or 
                        activity. The head of the agency may 
                        disclose such return information to 
                        officers and employees of such agency 
                        to the extent necessary to investigate 
                        or respond to such terrorist incident, 
                        threat, or activity.
                            (ii) Disclosure to the department 
                        of justice.--Returns and taxpayer 
                        return information may also be 
                        disclosed to the Attorney General under 
                        clause (i) to the extent necessary for, 
                        and solely for use in preparing, an 
                        application under paragraph (7)(D).
                            (iii) Taxpayer identity.--For 
                        purposes of this subparagraph, a 
                        taxpayer's identity shall not be 
                        treated as taxpayer return information.
                            (iv) Termination.--No disclosure 
                        may be made under this subparagraph 
                        after December 31, 2003.
            (4) Use of certain disclosed returns and return 
        information in judicial or administrative 
        proceedings.--
                    (A) Returns and taxpayer return 
                information.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (C), any return or taxpayer return 
                information obtained under paragraph (1) or 
                (7)(C) may be disclosed in any judicial or 
                administrative proceeding pertaining to 
                enforcement of a specifically designated 
                Federal criminal statute or related civil 
                forfeiture (not involving tax administration) 
                to which the United States or a Federal agency 
                is a party--
                            (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (B) Return information (other than taxpayer 
                return information).--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (C), any return information (other 
                than taxpayer return information) obtained 
                under paragraph (1), (2), [or (3)(A)] (3)(A) or 
                (C), or (7) may be disclosed in any judicial or 
                administrative proceeding pertaining to 
                enforcement of a specifically designated 
                Federal criminal statute or related civil 
                forfeiture (not involving tax administration) 
                to which the United States or a Federal agency 
                is a party.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) Confidential informants; impairment of 
        investigations.--The Secretary shall not disclose any 
        return or return information under paragraph (1), (2), 
        (3)(A) or(C), (5), [or (7)] (7), or (8) if the 
        Secretary determines (and, in the case of a request for 
        disclosure pursuant to a court order described in 
        paragraph (1)(B) or (5)(B), certifies to the court) 
        that such disclosure would identify a confidential 
        informant or seriously impair a civil or criminal tax 
        investigation.
            (7) Disclosure upon request of information relating 
        to terrorist activities, etc.--
                    (A) Disclosure to law enforcement 
                agencies.--
                            (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in paragraph (6), upon receipt by the 
                        Secretary of a written request which 
                        meets the requirements of clause (iii), 
                        the Secretary may disclose return 
                        information (other than taxpayer return 
                        information) to officers and employees 
                        of any Federal law enforcement agency 
                        who are personally and directly engaged 
                        in the response to or investigation of 
                        terrorist incidents, threats, or 
                        activities.
                            (ii) Disclosure to state and local 
                        law enforcement agencies.--The head of 
                        any Federal law enforcement agency may 
                        disclose return information obtained 
                        under clause (i) to officers and 
                        employees of any State or local law 
                        enforcement agency but only if such 
                        agency is part of a team with the 
                        Federal law enforcement agency in such 
                        response or investigation and such 
                        information is disclosed only to 
                        officers and employees who are 
                        personally and directly engaged in such 
                        response or investigation.
                            (iii) Requirements.--A request 
                        meets the requirements of this clause 
                        if--
                                    (I) the request is made by 
                                the head of any Federal law 
                                enforcement agency (or his 
                                delegate) involved in the 
                                response to or investigation of 
                                terrorist incidents, threats, 
                                or activities, and
                                    (II) the request sets forth 
                                the specific reason or reasons 
                                why such disclosure may be 
                                relevant to a terrorist 
                                incident, threat, or activity.
                            (iv) Limitation on use of 
                        information.--Information disclosed 
                        under this subparagraph shall be solely 
                        for the use of the officers and 
                        employees to whom such information is 
                        disclosed in such response or 
                        investigation.
                    (B) Disclosure to intelligence agencies.--
                            (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in paragraph (6), upon receipt by the 
                        Secretary of a written request which 
                        meets the requirements of clause (ii), 
                        the Secretary may disclose return 
                        information (other than taxpayer return 
                        information) to those officers and 
                        employees of the Department of Justice, 
                        the Department of the Treasury, and 
                        other Federal intelligence agencies who 
                        are personally and directly engaged in 
                        the collection or analysis of 
                        intelligence and counterintelligence 
                        information or investigation concerning 
                        terrorists and terrorist organizations 
                        and activities. For purposes of the 
                        preceding sentence, the information 
                        disclosed under the preceding sentence 
                        shall be solely for the use of such 
                        officers and employees in such 
                        investigation, collection, or analysis.
                            (ii) Requirements.--A request meets 
                        the requirements of this subparagraph 
                        if the request--
                                    (I) is made by an 
                                individual described in clause 
                                (iii), and
                                    (II) sets forth the 
                                specific reason or reasons why 
                                such disclosure may be relevant 
                                to a terrorist incident, 
                                threat, or activity.
                            (iii) Requesting individuals.--An 
                        individual described in this 
                        subparagraph is an individual--
                                    (I) who is an officer or 
                                employee of the Department of 
                                Justice or the Department of 
                                the Treasury who is appointed 
                                by the President with the 
                                advice and consent of the 
                                Senate or who is the Director 
                                of the United States Secret 
                                Service, and
                                    (II) who is responsible for 
                                the collection and analysis of 
                                intelligence and 
                                counterintelligence information 
                                concerning terrorists and 
                                terrorist organizations and 
                                activities.
                            (iv) Taxpayer identity.--For 
                        purposes of this subparagraph, a 
                        taxpayer's identity shall not be 
                        treated as taxpayer return information.
                    (C) Disclosure under ex parte orders.--
                            (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in paragraph (6), any return or return 
                        information with respect to any 
                        specified taxable period or periods 
                        shall, pursuant to and upon the grant 
                        of an ex parte order by a Federal 
                        district court judge or magistrate 
                        under clause (ii), be open (but only to 
                        the extent necessary as provided in 
                        such order) to inspection by, or 
                        disclosure to, officers and employees 
                        of any Federal law enforcement agency 
                        or Federal intelligence agency who are 
                        personally and directly engaged in any 
                        investigation, response to, or analysis 
                        of intelligence and counterintelligence 
                        information concerning any terrorist 
                        activity or threats. Return or return 
                        information opened pursuant to the 
                        preceding sentence shall be solely for 
                        the use of such officers and employees 
                        in the investigation, response, or 
                        analysis, and in any judicial, 
                        administrative, or grand jury 
                        proceedings, pertaining to any such 
                        terrorist activity or threat.
                            (ii) Application for order.--The 
                        Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney 
                        General, the Associate Attorney 
                        General, any Assistant Attorney 
                        General, or any United States attorney 
                        may authorize an application to a 
                        Federal district court judge or 
                        magistrate for the order referred to in 
                        clause (i). Upon such application, such 
                        judge or magistrate may grant such 
                        order if he determines on the basis of 
                        the facts submitted by the applicant 
                        that--
                                    (I) there is reasonable 
                                cause to believe, based upon 
                                information believed to be 
                                reliable, that the taxpayer 
                                whose return or return 
                                information is to be disclosed 
                                may be connected to a terrorist 
                                activity or threat,
                                    (II) there is reasonable 
                                cause to believe that the 
                                return or return information 
                                may be relevant to a matter 
                                relating to such terrorist 
                                activity or threat, and
                                    (III) the return or return 
                                information is sought 
                                exclusively for use in a 
                                Federal investigation, 
                                analysis, or proceeding 
                                concerning terrorist activity, 
                                terrorist threats, or terrorist 
                                organizations.
                    (D) Special rule for ex parte disclosure by 
                the irs.--
                            (i) In general.--Except as provided 
                        in paragraph (6), the Secretary may 
                        authorize an application to a Federal 
                        district court judge or magistrate for 
                        the order referred to in subparagraph 
                        (C)(i). Upon such application, such 
                        judge or magistrate may grant such 
                        order if he determines on the basis of 
                        the facts submitted by the applicant 
                        that the requirements of subclauses (I) 
                        and (II) of subparagraph (C)(ii) are 
                        met.
                            (ii) Limitation on use of 
                        information.--Information disclosed 
                        under clause (i)--
                                    (I) may be disclosed only 
                                to the extent necessary to 
                                apprise the head of the 
                                appropriate Federal law 
                                enforcement agency responsible 
                                for investigating or responding 
                                to a terrorist incident, 
                                threat, or activity, and
                                    (II) shall be solely for 
                                use in a Federal investigation, 
                                analysis, or proceeding 
                                concerning terrorist activity, 
                                terrorist threats, or terrorist 
                                organizations.
                        The head of such Federal agency may 
                        disclose such information to officers 
                        and employees of such agency to the 
                        extent necessary to investigate or 
                        respond to such terrorist incident, 
                        threat, or activity.
                    (E) Termination.--No disclosure may be made 
                under this paragraph after December 31, 2003.
            [(7)] (8) Comptroller general.--
                    (A) Returns available for inspection.--
                Except as provided in subparagraph (C), upon 
                written request by the Comptroller General of 
                the United States, returns and return 
                information shall be open to inspection by, or 
                disclosure to, officers and employees of the 
                General Accounting Office for the purpose of, 
                and to the extent necessary in, making--
                            (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (p) Procedure and Recordkeeping.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Records of inspection and disclosure.--
                    (A) System of recordkeeping.--Except as 
                otherwise provided by this paragraph, the 
                Secretary shall maintain a permanent system of 
                standardized records or accountings of all 
                requests for inspection or disclosure of 
                returns and return information (including the 
                reasons for and dates of such requests) and of 
                returns and return information inspected or 
                disclosed under this section. Notwithstanding 
                the provisions of section 552a(c) of title 5, 
                United States Code, the Secretary shall not be 
                required to maintain a record or accounting of 
                requests for inspection or disclosure of 
                returns and return information, or of returns 
                and return information inspected or disclosed, 
                under the authority of subsections (c), (e), 
                (f)(5), (h)(1), (3)(A), or (4), (i)(4), or 
                [(7)(A)(ii)] (8)(A)(ii), (k)(1), (2), (6), (8), 
                or (9) (l)(1), (4)(B), (5), (7), (8), (9), 
                (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), or 
                (17) (m) or (n). The records or accountings 
                required to be maintained under this paragraph 
                shall be available for examination by the Joint 
                Committee on Taxation or the Chief of Staff of 
                such joint committee. Such record or accounting 
                shall also be available for examination by such 
                person or persons as may be, but only to the 
                extent, authorized to make such examination 
                under section 552a(c)(3) of title 5, United 
                States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (C) Public report on disclosures.--The 
                Secretary shall, within 90 days after the close 
                of each calendar year, furnish to the Joint 
                Committee on Taxation for disclosure to the 
                public a report with respect to the records or 
                accountings described in subparagraph (A) 
                which--
                            (i) provides with respect to each 
                        Federal agency, each agency, body, or 
                        commission described in subsection (d), 
                        (i)(3)(B)(i) or (7)(A)(ii) or (l)(6), 
                        and the General Accounting Office the 
                        number of--
                                    (I) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Safeguards.--Any Federal agency described in 
        subsection (h)(2), (h)(5), (i)(1), (2), (3), [or (5),] 
        (5), or (7), (j)(1), (2) or (5), (k)(8), (l)(1), (2), 
        (3), (5), (11), (13), (14), or (17) or (o)(1), the 
        General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget 
        Office, or any agency, body, or commission described in 
        subsection (d), (i)(3)(B)(i) or (7)(A)(ii) or (l)(6), 
        (7), (8), (9), (12), (15), or (16) or any other person 
        described in subsection (l)(16) shall, as a condition 
        for receiving returns or return information--
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (F) upon completion of use of such returns 
                or return information--
                            (i) * * *
                            (ii) in the case of an agency 
                        described in subsections (h)(2), 
                        (h)(5), (i)(1), (2), (3), [or (5),] (5) 
                        or (7), (j)(1), (2) or (5), (k)(8), 
                        (l)(1), (2), (3), (5), (10), (11), 
                        (12), (13), (14), (15), or (17) or 
                        (o)(1), the General Accounting Office, 
                        or the Congressional Budget Office, 
                        either--
                                    (I) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) Audit of procedures and safeguards.--
                    (A) * * *
                    (B) Records of inspection and reports by 
                the comptroller general.--The Comptroller 
                General shall--
                            (i) maintain a permanent system of 
                        standardized records and accountings of 
                        returns and return information 
                        inspected by officers and employees of 
                        the General Accounting Office under 
                        subsection [(i)(7)(A)(ii)] 
                        (i)(8)(A)(ii) and shall, within 90 days 
                        after the close of each calendar year, 
                        furnish to the Secretary a report with 
                        respect to, or summary of, such records 
                        or accountings in such form and 
                        containing such information as the 
                        Secretary may prescribe, and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 75--CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subchapter A--Crimes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 7213. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

    (a) Returns and Return Information.--
            (1) * * *
            (2) State and other employees.--It shall be 
        unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph 
        (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as 
        authorized in this title, any return or return 
        information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by 
        him or another person under subsection (d), 
        (i)(3)(B)(i) or (7)(A)(ii), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), 
        (10), or (12), (15), or (16) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), 
        or (7) of section 6103. Any violation of this paragraph 
        shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount 
        not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 
        5 years, or both, together with the costs of 
        prosecution.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

  OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

                          (Public Law 105-277)

            DIVISION A--OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS

    That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the several 
departments, agencies, corporations and other organizational 
units of the Government for the fiscal year 1999, and for other 
purposes, namely:
      Sec. 101(a). * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (b) For programs, projects or activities in the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, provided as follows, 
to be effective as if it had been enacted into law as the 
regular appropriations Act:

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
  and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

General Provisions--Department of Justice

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
during fiscal year 1999, the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice--
            (1) may make grants, or enter into cooperative 
        agreements and contracts, for the Office of Justice 
        Programs and the component organizations of that Office 
        (including, notwithstanding any contrary provision of 
        law (unless the same should expressly refer to this 
        section), any organization that administers any program 
        established in title 1 of Public Law 90-351); and
            (2) shall have final authority over all functions, 
        including any grants, cooperative agreements, and 
        contracts made, or entered into, for the Office of 
        Justice Programs and the component organizations of 
        that Office (including, notwithstanding any contrary 
        provision of law (unless the same should expressly 
        refer to this section), any organization that 
        administers any program established in title 1 of 
        Public Law 90-351).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                          (Public Law 106-113)

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

General Provisions--Department of Justice

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    Sec. 108. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
for fiscal year 2000, the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice--
            (1) may make grants, or enter into cooperative 
        agreements and contracts, for the Office of Justice 
        Programs and the component organizations of that Office 
        (including, notwithstanding any contrary provision of 
        law (unless the same should expressly refer to this 
        section), any organization that administers any program 
        established in title 1 of Public Law 90-351); and
            (2) shall have final authority over all functions, 
        including any grants, cooperative agreements and 
        contracts made, or entered into, for the Office of 
        Justice Programs and the component organizations of 
        that Office (including, notwithstanding any contrary 
        provision of law (unless the same should expressly 
        refer to this section), any organization that 
        administers any program established in title 1 of 
        Public Law 90-351), except for grants made under the 
        provisions of sections 201, 202, 301, and 302 of the 
        Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
        amended; and sections 204(b)(3), 241(e)(1), 243(a)(1), 
        243(a)(14) and 287A(3) of the Juvenile Justice and 
        Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

           SECTION 1404B OF THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984

SEC. 1404B. COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF TERRORISM OR MASS 
                    VIOLENCE.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Victims of Terrorism Within the United States.--The 
Director may make supplemental grants as provided in section 
1402(d)(5) to States for eligible crime victim compensation and 
assistance programs, to victim service organizations, to public 
agencies (including Federal, State, or local governments), and 
to non-governmental organizations that provide assistance to 
victims of crime, to provide emergency relief, including crisis 
response efforts, assistance, training, and technical 
assistance, for the benefit of victims of terrorist acts or 
mass violence occurring within the United States and may 
provide funding to United States Attorney's Offices for use in 
coordination with State victim compensation and assistance 
efforts in providing emergency relief.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

               SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2001

                          (Public Law 107-37)

 AN ACT To provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a 
public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury 
as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the 
line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
                                 2001.

SECTION 1. EXPEDITED PAYMENT FOR HEROIC PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS.

    Notwithstanding the limitations of subsection (b) of 
section 1201 or the provisions of subsections (c), (d), and (e) 
of such section or section 1202 of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796, 3796a), 
upon certification (containing identification of all eligible 
payees of benefits under section 1201) by a public agency that 
a public safety officer employed by such agency was killed or 
suffered a catastrophic injury producing permanent and total 
disability as a direct and proximate result of a personal 
injury sustained in the line of duty as described in section 
[1201(a)] 1201 of such Act in connection with the rescue or 
recovery efforts related to the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
shall authorize payment to qualified beneficiaries, said 
payment to be made not later than 30 days after receipt of such 
certification, benefits described under subpart 1 of part L of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.).
                              ----------                              

                       CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1990

(Public Law 101-647)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE XXV--BANKING LAW ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle H--Actions Against Persons Committing Bank Fraud Crimes

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1--DECLARATIONS PROVIDING NEW CLAIMS TO THE UNITED STATES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 2565. RIGHTS OF DECLARANTS; PARTICIPATION IN ACTIONS, AWARDS.

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Criminal Conviction.--(1) When the United States obtains 
a criminal conviction and the Attorney General determines that 
the conviction was based in whole or in part on the information 
contained in a valid declaration filed under section 2561, [the 
declarant shall have the right to receive not less than $5,000 
and not more than $100,000, any such award to be paid from the 
Financial Institution Information Award Fund established under 
section 2569.] the Attorney General may, in the Attorney 
General's discretion, pay a reward to the declaring.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(e) Prohibition of Double Awards.--(1) No person shall 
receive both an award under this section and a reward under 
either section 34 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or 
section 3509A of title 18, United States Code, for providing 
the same or substantially similar information.
  [(2) When a person qualifies for both an award under this 
section and a reward under either section 34 of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act or section 3509A of title 18, United 
States Code, for providing the same or substantially similar 
information, the person may notify the Attorney General in 
writing of the person's election to seek an award under this 
section or a reward under such other section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[SEC. 2569. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION INFORMATION AWARD FUND.

  [(a) Establishment.--There is established in the United 
States Treasury a special fund to be known as the Financial 
Institution Information Award Fund (referred to as the 
``Fund'') which shall be available to the Attorney General 
without fiscal year limitation to pay awards to declarants 
pursuant to section 2565(c) and to pay special rewards pursuant 
to section 3059A of title 18, United States Code.
  [(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to the Fund such funds as are necessary to 
maintain the Fund at a level not to exceed $5,000,000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service

                         salaries and expenses

    For expenses necessary for the administration and 
enforcement of the laws relating to immigration, 
naturalization, and alien registration, as follows:

                     enforcement and border affairs

    For salaries and expenses for the Border Patrol program, 
the detention and deportation program, the intelligence 
program, the investigations program, and the inspections 
program, including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen 
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under 
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the 
certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-type 
use (not to exceed 3,165 passenger motor vehicles, of which 
2,211 are for replacement only), without regard to the general 
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, and hire 
of passenger motor vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance 
and operation of aircraft; research related to immigration 
enforcement; for protecting and maintaining the integrity of 
the borders of the United States including, without limitation, 
equipping, maintaining, and making improvements to the 
infrastructure; and for the care and housing of Federal 
detainees held in the joint Immigration and Naturalization 
Service and United States Marshals Service's Buffalo Detention 
Facility, $2,547,057,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
shall be available for costs associated with the training 
program for basic officer training, and $5,000,000 is for 
payments or advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies while 
engaged in cooperative activities related to immigration; of 
which not to exceed $5,000,000 is to fund or reimburse other 
Federal agencies for the costs associated with the care, 
maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled illegal aliens: 
[Provided, That none of the funds available to the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service shall be available to pay any 
employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of $30,000 during 
the calendar year beginning January 1, 2001:] Provided further, 
That uniforms may be purchased without regard to the general 
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year: Provided 
further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time equivalent 
workyears available to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, not to exceed 19,783 positions and 19,191 full-time 
equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds 
appropriated under this heading in this Act for the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service: Provided further, That none of the 
funds provided in this or any other Act shall be used for the 
continued operation of the San Clemente and Temecula 
checkpoints unless the checkpoints are open and traffic is 
being checked on a continuous 24-hour basis.

  citizenship and benefits, immigration support and program direction

    For all programs of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service not included under the heading ``Enforcement and Border 
Affairs'', $578,819,000, of which not to exceed $400,000 for 
research shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for official reception 
and representation expenses: Provided further, That the 
Attorney General may transfer any funds appropriated under this 
heading and the heading ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' 
between said appropriations notwithstanding any percentage 
transfer limitations imposed under this appropriation Act and 
may direct such fees as are collected by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service to the activities funded under this 
heading and the heading ``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' for 
performance of the functions for which the fees legally may be 
expended: Provided further, That not to exceed 40 permanent 
positions and 40 full-time equivalent workyears and $4,300,000 
shall be expended for the Offices of Legislative Affairs and 
Public Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two 
aforementioned offices shall not be augmented by personnel 
details, temporary transfers of personnel on either a 
reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, or any other type of 
formal or informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or 
funds on either a temporary or long-term basis: Provided 
further, That the number of positions filled through non-career 
appointment at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for 
which funding is provided in this Act or is otherwise made 
available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, shall 
not exceed four permanent positions and four full-time 
equivalent workyears: [Provided further, That none of the funds 
available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall 
be used to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess 
of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2001:] 
Provided further, That funds may be used, without limitation, 
for equipping, maintaining, and making improvements to the 
infrastructure and the purchase of vehicles for police-type use 
within the limits of the Enforcement and Border Affairs 
appropriation: Provided further, That, in addition to 
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, not to exceed 3,100 
positions and 3,150 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
supported from the funds appropriated under this heading in 
this Act for the Immigration and Naturalization Service: 
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, during fiscal year 2001, the Attorney General is 
authorized and directed to impose disciplinary action, 
including termination of employment, pursuant to policies and 
procedures applicable to employees of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, for any employee of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service who violates policies and procedures set 
forth by the Department of Justice relative to the granting of 
citizenship or who willfully deceives the Congress or 
department leadership on any matter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

 SECTION 1201 OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1986

                                payments

    Sec. 1201. (a) In any case in which the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance (hereinafter in this part referred to as the 
``Bureau'') determines, under regulations issued pursuant to 
this part, that a public safety officer has died as the direct 
and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line 
of duty, the Bureau shall pay a benefit of [$100,000] $200,000, 
adjusted in accordance with subsection (h), as follows:
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

   SECTION 2805 OF THE RECLAMATION RECREATION MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1992

SEC. 2805. MANAGEMENT OF RECLAMATION LANDS.

    (a) Administration.--(1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) Any person who violates any such regulation which is 
issued pursuant to this Act shall be fined under title 18, 
United States Code, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both. 
Any person charged with a violation of such regulation may be 
tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge 
designated for that purpose by the court by which such judge 
was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same 
conditions and limitations as provided for in section 3401 of 
title 18, United States Code.
    (4) The Secretary may--
            (A) authorize law enforcement personnel from the 
        Department of the Interior to act as law enforcement 
        officers to maintain law and order and protect persons 
        and property within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands;
            (B) authorize law enforcement personnel of any 
        other Federal agency that has law enforcement 
        authority, with the exception of the Department of 
        Defense, or law enforcement personnel of any State or 
        local government, including Indian tribes, when deemed 
        economical and in the public interest, and with the 
        concurrence of that agency or that State or local 
        government, to act as law enforcement officers within a 
        Reclamation project or on Reclamation lands with such 
        enforcement powers as may be so assigned them by the 
        Secretary to carry out the regulations promulgated 
        under paragraph (2);
            (C) cooperate with any State or local government, 
        including Indian tribes, in the enforcement of the laws 
        or ordinances of that State or local government; and
            (D) provide reimbursement to a State or local 
        government, including Indian tribes, for expenditures 
        incurred in connection with activities under 
        subparagraph (B).
    (5) Officers or employees designated or authorized by the 
Secretary under paragraph (4) are authorized to--
            (A) carry firearms within a Reclamation project or 
        on Reclamation lands and make arrests without warrants 
        for any offense against the United States committed in 
        their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the 
        laws of the United States if they have reasonable 
        grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has 
        committed or is committing such a felony, and if such 
        arrests occur within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands or the person to be arrested is 
        fleeing therefrom to avoid arrest;
            (B) execute within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands any warrant or other process issued 
        by a court or officer of competent jurisdiction for the 
        enforcement of the provisions of any Federal law or 
        regulation issued pursuant to law for an offense 
        committed within a Reclamation project or on 
        Reclamation lands; and
            (C) conduct investigations within a Reclamation 
        project or on Reclamation lands of offenses against the 
        United States committed within a Reclamation project or 
        on Reclamation lands, if the Federal law enforcement 
        agency having investigative jurisdiction over the 
        offense committed declines to investigate the offense 
        or concurs with such investigation.
    (6)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a 
law enforcement officer of any State or local government, 
including Indian tribes, designated to act as a law enforcement 
officer under paragraph (4) shall not be deemed a Federal 
employee and shall not be subject to the provisions of law 
relating to Federal employment, including those relating to 
hours of work, rates of compensation, employment 
discrimination, leave, unemployment compensation, and Federal 
benefits.
    (B) For purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States 
Code, popularly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law 
enforcement officer of any State or local government, including 
Indian tribes, shall, when acting as a designated law 
enforcement officer under paragraph (4) and while under Federal 
supervision and control, and only when carrying out Federal law 
enforcement responsibilities, be considered a Federal employee.
    (C) For purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, 
United States Code, relating to compensation to Federal 
employees for work injuries, a law enforcement officer of any 
State or local government, including Indian tribes, shall, when 
acting as a designated law enforcement officer under paragraph 
(4) and while under Federal supervision and control, and only 
when carrying out Federal law enforcement responsibilities, be 
deemed a civil service employee of the United States within the 
meaning of the term ``employee'' as defined in section 8101 of 
title 5, and the provisions of that subchapter shall apply. 
Benefits under this subchapter shall be reduced by the amount 
of any entitlement to State or local workers' compensation 
benefits arising out of the same injury or death.
    (7) Nothing in paragraphs (3) through (9) shall be 
construed or applied to limit or restrict the investigative 
jurisdiction of any Federal law enforcement agency, or to 
affect any existing right of a State or local government, 
including Indian tribes, to exercise civil and criminal 
jurisdiction within a Reclamation project or on Reclamation 
lands.
    (8) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ``law 
enforcement personnel'' means employees of a Federal, State, or 
local government agency, including an Indian tribal agency, who 
have successfully completed law enforcement training approved 
by the Secretary and are authorized to carry firearms, make 
arrests, and execute service of process to enforce criminal 
laws of their employing jurisdiction.
    (9) The law enforcement authorities provided for in this 
subsection may be exercised only pursuant to rules and 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary and approved by the 
Attorney General.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 87--DISTRICT COURTS; VENUE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1391. Venue generally

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) A civil action against a foreign state as defined in 
section 1603(a) of this title may be brought--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) in any judicial district in which the agency or 
        instrumentality is licensed to do business or is doing 
        business, if the action is brought against an agency or 
        instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in 
        section [1603(b)] 1603(b)(1) of this title; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 97--JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1603. Definitions

    For purposes of this chapter--
    (a) * * *
    [(b) An ``agency or instrumentality of a foreign state'' 
means any entity--] (b) An ``agency or instrumentality of a 
foreign state'' means--
            (1) any entity--
                    [(1)] (A) which is a separate legal person, 
                corporate or otherwise, and
                    [(2)] (B) which is an organ of a foreign 
                state or political subdivision thereof, or a 
                majority of whose shares or other ownership 
                interest is owned by a foreign state or 
                political subdivision thereof, and
                    [(3)] (C) which is neither a citizen of a 
                State of the United States as defined in 
                section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor 
                created under the laws of any third country[.]; 
                and
            (2) for purposes of sections 1605(a)(7) and 
        1610(a)(7) and (f), any entity as defined under 
        subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), and 
        subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall not apply.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1610. Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
including but not limited to section 208(f) of the Foreign 
Missions Act (22 U.S.C. 4308(f)), and except as provided in 
subparagraph (B), any property with respect to which financial 
transactions are prohibited or regulated pursuant to section 
5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), 
section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
2370(a)), sections 202 and 203 of the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1702), or any other 
proclamation, order, regulation, or license issued pursuant 
thereto, shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of 
execution of any judgment relating to a claim for which a 
foreign state [(including any agency or instrumentality or such 
state)] (including any agency or instrumentality of such 
state), except to the extent of any punitive damages awarded 
claiming such property is not immune under section 605(a)(7).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, moneys due 
from or payable by the United States (including any agency or 
instrumentality thereof) to any state against which a judgment 
is pending under section 1605(a)(7) shall be subject to 
attachment and execution with respect to that judgment, in like 
manner and to the same extent as if the United States were a 
private person, except to the extent of any punitive damages 
awarded.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            [(3) Waiver.--The President may waive any provision 
        of paragraph (1) in the interest of national security.]
    (3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), upon determining on an 
asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the national 
security interest, the President may waive this subsection in 
connection with (and prior to the enforcement of) any judicial 
order directing attachment in aid of execution or execution 
against any property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
Relations.
    (B) A waiver under this paragraph shall not apply to--
            (i) if property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
        Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on 
        Consular Relations has been used for any nondiplomatic 
        purpose (including use as rental property), the 
        proceeds of such use; or
            (ii) if any asset subject to the Vienna Convention 
        on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on 
        Consular Relations is sold or otherwise transferred for 
        value to a third party, the proceeds of such sale or 
        transfer.
    (C) In this paragraph, the term ``property subject to the 
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations'' and the term ``asset subject 
to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations'' mean any property or asset, 
respectively, the attachment in aid of execution or execution 
of which would result in a violation of an obligation of the 
United States under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as 
the case may be.
    (4) For purposes of this subsection, all assets of any 
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state shall be treated 
as assets of that foreign state.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                     Committee Jurisdiction Letters

                           Markup Transcript

                            BUSINESS MEETING

                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. As 
the first order of business today, I would like to welcome two 
Members appointed to the Judiciary Committee last night.
    First, I would like to welcome back Ed Bryant to the 
Committee after a leave of absence. Our distinguished colleague 
has represented the Seventh District of Tennessee since 1994, 
and we are glad to have him back in our ranks. Mr. Bryant will 
rank after Mr. Goodlatte.
    I would also like to welcome to the Committee Mike Pence. 
Mr. Pence is a freshman who represents the Second District of 
Indiana, and we are very glad to have you both on the Committee 
as we consider this important legislation before us today.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. May we join in that, saying welcome to our two 
colleagues.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Absolutely.
    Now, pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 2975, the 
Patriot Act of 2001, for purposes of markup and move as 
favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection, the 
bill will be considered as read and open for amendment by 
title, except that a manager's amendment offered by the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may be considered at any 
point during the consideration of this bill.
    [The bill, H.R. 2975, follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me say that this is a little 
bit different than the procedure that we have utilized in the 
past. The entire bill is open for amendment, but I believe that 
for purposes of better order and better debate, if we did it 
title by title, we could concentrate on the issues presented in 
each title. Hearing the unpleasant noise of bells in my right 
ear, let me now recess the Committee until after the second 
vote.
    Let me say that it is the Chair's intention to continue 
this markup through the classified briefing that is being held 
across the street beginning at 4:00 o'clock, because it is 
important that the Committee report this bill out today, and it 
is also the Chair's intention to keep the Committee in session 
until we have a final vote on reporting the bill out. The 
Committee is now recessed until after the second vote.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. The 
Chair notes the presence of a working quorum, and when the 
Committee recessed the bill had been called up and unanimous 
consent had been granted to consider the bill by title. In 
order to speed things up, I would like to limit opening 
statements to Mr. Conyers and myself. Without objection, all 
Members' opening statements may be included in the record at 
this point.
    The Chair will now recognize himself for an opening 
statement.
    On September 11th, not only our Nation but our entire way 
of life was attacked. From the moment that the first plane 
smashed into the North Twin Tower, our lives were changed 
forever. The sordid acts of the 19 men and the elaborate 
network of organizations that support their cause have opened 
our eyes to the clear and present danger that threatens our 
great country. Now that our blinders have been removed, the 
question is how we will act to help prevent future attacks.
    Today we meet with one purpose in mind, to provide law 
enforcement with important additional tools to help prevent 
this sort of catastrophe from ever happening on U.S. soil 
again. A true patriot is one who loves, supports and defends 
his or her country. In the days and weeks following this 
horrific act, it has become clear to the world that the United 
States is a nation of patriots who through the selfless act of 
the New York firefighters and rescue workers, the heroism of 
the passengers on Flight 93, the charitable donations of our 
citizens' blood and money and the proud display of our most 
enduring symbol of freedom, the American flag. The united 
efforts of this country are reflected in the bipartisan efforts 
of this bill, which I was pleased to introduce with the Ranking 
Member, Mr. Conyers, along with the cosponsorship of 18 
bipartisan Members of this Committee.
    The bill represents the essence of compromise. The left is 
not completely happy with this bill, and neither is the right, 
but certainly does not represent the Justice Department's wish 
list. I think it means we have got it just about right. We are 
considering this legislation today because the rules of war on 
terrorism are vastly different than the wars this country has 
fought in the past. We are uncertain who the enemy is. We are 
uncertain where the enemy is. We are more uncertain than ever 
before about the next move of the enemy. Because of this 
uncertainty, we have had to change the way we think about the 
safety and security of our country and its people. We must 
develop new weapons for the protection against this new kind of 
war.
    It is important that this new approach to safety and 
security that is required us to take action today. The 
bipartisan legislation we are considering today will give law 
enforcement new weapons to fight a new kind of war. Terrorists 
have weapons that law enforcement cannot protect against right 
now. Technology has made extraordinary advances, but those 
advances in the wrong hand have made us more vulnerable to 
attack.
    Attorney General Ashcroft testified before the Judiciary 
Committee that, quote, we are today sending our troops into the 
modern field of battle with antique weapons, unquote. Indeed, 
it cannot be denied that law enforcement tools created decades 
ago were crafted for rotary telephones, not e-mail, the 
Internet, mobile communications and voicemail. Thus, the 
Patriot Act modernizes surveillance capabilities by ensuring 
that pen register and trap and trace court orders apply to new 
technologies such as the Internet and can be executed in 
multiple jurisdictions anywhere in the United States.
    Criminal provisions dealing with stored electronic 
communications will be updated to allow law enforcement to 
seize stored voicemail messages in the same way they can seize 
a taped answering machine message. Additionally under this bill 
the court may authorize a pen register or trap-trace order that 
follows the person from cell phone to cell phone, rather than 
requiring law enforcement to return to court every time the 
person switches cell phones.
    The bill, consistent with our constitutional system of 
government, still requires a judge to approve wiretap search 
warrants and registers and trap-trace devices. The Patriot Act 
also toughens our substantive criminal law statutes in order to 
treat crimes of terrorism with the same level of importance as 
the most serious crimes in our country, and it expands the 
definition of support of terrorism for which a person could be 
prosecuted to include providing expert advice to terrorists or 
harboring terrorists or concealing a suspected terrorist.
    Of equal importance, the bill will not do anything to take 
away the freedoms of innocent citizens. Of course, we all 
recognize that the fourth amendment to the Constitution 
prevents the government from conducting unreasonable searches 
and seizures, and that is why the Patriot Act will not change 
the United States's Constitution or the rights guaranteed to 
citizens of this country under the Bill of Rights.
    Of course, the first civil right of every American is to be 
free of domestic terrorism, and this bill ensures that right by 
strengthening our Nation's law enforcement for the protection 
of all Americans and to ensure domestic tranquility.
    We have produced the means to address many of the 
shortcomings of current law, and to improve our law enforcement 
ability to eradicate terrorism from our borders while 
preserving the civil liberties of our citizens.
    I would like to thank both my staff and the minority staff 
for their extensive work and collaboration in drafting this 
legislation.
    I am also grateful for the cooperation of the Bush 
Administration, particularly for making Justice Department 
officials available to brief Members of this Committee at 
almost any time and place.
    I urge the Members of this Committee to support this 
delicate compromise legislation and the important purpose it 
will serve in fighting terrorism in this country and abroad.
    I believe there is an unquestionable need for this bill. In 
fact, I am convinced our homeland security depends upon it.
    At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for 
whatever comments he cares to make.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and our 
thanks to the 16 Members on the Democratic side for having 
invited us to work with you in crafting this bill. In my tenure 
on the Committee, I have not experienced the degree of 
cooperation between the majority and minority that has been 
displayed over the last 2 weeks on a bill as complex and as 
possibly contentious as this. There is still work to be done, 
but we are off to a good start.
    I also advance my thanks to you for preserving regular 
order on this matter. It is well known that many prefer that 
the Administration proposal be taken directly to the floor, but 
I believe that in the national interest order is preserved, and 
we reach a better result by taking the additional time required 
to go through this Committee and by getting some of the 
bothersome details as correct as we can.
    There is no doubt we are subject to conflicting instincts 
and inclinations on this bill. Protecting civil liberties and 
fighting terrorism in the wake of a national tragedy is not an 
easy thing to do. My friends in law enforcement tell me that 
they can be trusted not to abuse the sweeping new powers that 
they have requested, and I love to believe my friends in law 
enforcement. I wish that I could be confident that that would 
occur, but history has proven otherwise, regardless of what 
political party might have been in charge.
    During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of 
habeas corpus. In the wake of World War I, we experienced the 
Pommer raids when thousands of immigrants were wrongfully 
detained, beaten and deported. World War II brought about the 
shameful internship of Japanese American citizens. The Korean 
War led to the era of McCarthyism, guilt by association, and 
the Vietnamese War resulted in the FBI digging into the 
personal lives of those opposed to the Administration policy.
    There have also been anguish, sometimes strident cries, for 
a rush to judgment. Let us get this out fast. Now, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and I have both sought to expedite this process 
as much as possible. At the same time, the Founding Fathers did 
not intend the Congress to be a passive part of government, 
especially in times of crisis when the Bill of Rights may be 
threatened. So as much as I want to help John Ashcroft do his 
job as effectively as possible, it would be irresponsible to 
give him a blank check.
    On the other hand, my many friends in the civil liberties 
community tell me that there is no need to broaden the wiretap 
and surveillance laws. After much consideration, I have come to 
the conclusion that it is appropriate to update our laws to 
reflect 21st century reality. In the age of disposable cell 
phones, it makes sense to authorize multi-point wiretaps. I am 
sympathetic to the Attorney General when he complains we have 
given him more tools to fight organized crime than terrorism, 
but with these new powers must come accountability, additional 
accountability. This is why I insisted on extending the 
statutory exclusionary rule, increasing penalties for violating 
our surveillance laws and creating a new office in the 
Department of Justice to oversee civil liberties abuses.
    We also insisted the legislation be written in a manner 
that does not treat immigrants as our enemies. Diversity, after 
all, is our great strength, not our weakness, and each day 
every immigrant who has reached our shores is still entitled to 
dignity, respect and at least due process. That is why 
indefinite detention without evidence or court review has no 
place in our legal system.
    What we come to in closing is the old question, is this a 
perfect bill? Well, but it does represent a marked improvement 
over the Administration's initial proposal. As a matter of 
fact, I am having a side by side of the original Ashcroft 
proposals with the bill that is now before us at this moment. 
Among other things, I am hoping we can tighten the bill to 
safeguard innocent Americans from being subject to CIA 
snooping. It is imperative that as we hold this markup and move 
on to the floor, we continue to work together in good faith and 
to seek common ground. Our Nation deserves no less, and I am 
grateful to all of the Members of this Committee and our staffs 
for the work that they have done thus far.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in 
                 Congress From the State of California
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Conyers, for expediting 
the markup of H.R. 2975, ``The PATRIOT Act of 2001,'' to the full 
Judiciary Committee. I also want to thank the Judiciary Committee Staff 
for their time and expertise in working with the Justice Department, 
the President and individual Members of the Judiciary Committee in 
putting together this bill. H.R. 2975 will give the Justice Department 
the pertinent tools to investigate, apprehend and prosecute the 
perpetrators of terrorism, while at the same time preserving the civil 
liberties of all Americans.
    As our nation recovers from the terrifying attacks on September 
11th, it is apparent that the FBI, CIA and the INS were not 
sufficiently coordinated and currently do not have sufficient access to 
shared information in order to prevent future attacks. Immediate 
remedies are needed to apprehend the terrorists that planned these 
heinous acts and those that are plotting for the future. The Judiciary 
Committee has an opportunity to approve a bill that will give 
additional surveillance measures and greater abilities to prosecute 
terrorists to the Justice Department so they may better combat 
terrorism. But thoughtful consideration is needed in order to avoid the 
latent abuse of our rights as U.S. citizens by our own government.
    The Justice Department has asked this Congress for many of the 
provisions included in this bill, and I am certain that the Judiciary 
Committee will be asked to provide additional tools to intelligence 
agencies in the future as terrorism reveals itself in different forms. 
The success resulting from this bill should not be measured by how many 
terrorists we apprehend, but in terms of the number of lives saved by 
our deliberate action today.
    I thank the Chairman for scheduling this markup today of H.R. 2975 
and urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan.
    Are there amendments? Gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of them. The 
number----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Please turn your mike on.
    The Clerk. I have several amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Title I is open to amendment 
at any point. Is the gentleman from Illinois' amendment to 
title I--okay. This is a title III amendment. Are there any 
amendments to title I?
    Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Boucher. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R.----
    Mr. Boucher. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that 
the amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, let us have the Clerk pass 
some of them out.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975, offered by Messrs. 
Boucher, Goodlatte and Cannon. Insert at the end of title I the 
following: Section----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]

    
    
    Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my 
pleasure to join with our colleagues Messrs. Goodlatte and 
Cannon, in offering this amendment. It would merely ensure that 
nothing in the act imposes a mandate on communications service 
providers to redesign or modify their equipment, their 
facilities, their services, their features of system 
configuration in order to comply with the mandates of this act. 
The Department of Justice has indicated that it does not intend 
that any such burden be placed on communications service 
providers. The amendment merely reflects that intent and would 
prevent any provision from being interpreted as imposing such a 
mandate.
    Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Boucher.--think this is noncontroversial, and I would 
be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
This is a constructive provision to the bill and it says the 
bill will not impose any technological obligation on any 
provider of wire electronic communications service. That is not 
the intent of the bill, and I think that this clarifies this.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Boucher. I would be pleased to yield.
    Mr. Conyers. I would like the gentleman from Virginia to 
know that I think this is a constructive addition to the bill.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
and I would be----
    Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Boucher. I would be pleased to yield.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I think this is a constructive addition to 
the bill. As you know, there have been a great many concerns 
regarding previous laws that have been passed, particularly 
COLEA, that have imposed inordinate burdens on the 
telecommunications industry. Sometimes those things are 
necessary and appropriate, sometimes not, but simply to do it 
without understanding what the costs are and so on is not the 
way to go. We have done that before, and we run into a lot of 
difficulties as a result. So this amendment is a good one, and 
I appreciate the Chairman accepting it.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on adoption of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Boucher. Those in 
favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear 
to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to title I?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk which, based upon conversations with you and with Chairman 
Smith, I do not intend to offer, but I want to reach an 
understanding with the Chair as to how he intends to approach 
this problem. The amendment deals with the issue of defining 
what is content when you move pen register and trap and trace 
legislation on to the Internet. As you know, when you use those 
devices to capture outgoing e-mails, incoming e-mails, movement 
around the Internet to different Web sites and so on, you can 
secure a great deal more information than you get in the 
equivalent when you do something on the telephone, where 
basically all you get is the telephone number made or the 
telephone number received.
    I am referring to things like the subject headers on e-
mails, like the second and third and below level URLs, which 
are the indications of, once you visit a Web site, what exactly 
you are looking at on the Web site. If someone were able to 
follow somebody as they surfed the Internet and saw every 
single page they looked at, they could write quite a convincing 
dossier about that individual without ever having obtained any 
court approval to obtain that level of information.
    We have attempted to work on language. We do have language 
that we have shown to other Members of the Committee that we 
have not yet reached agreement on, but it would be very helpful 
if there were report language included within that made clear 
that this legislation does not include content and gave some 
definition of what that content is.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I would yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman states what the 
intent of the legislation is precisely, and that is that the 
pen register and trap and trace provisions are not to get into 
content of these types of electronic communications but merely 
where they have come from and where they go to. We will work on 
getting appropriate report language in the Committee report and 
further work with the gentleman as well as with the Justice 
Department as this legislation moves through the process just 
to make sure that there is not an expansive definition of 
content.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Yes, I would yield to the gentlelady from 
California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Just briefly. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I am glad that this is going to be addressed in the 
report. I think it is worth stating also that in the 
discussions that we had at a staff level, and Members as well, 
with the Justice Department and the White House, they made it 
very clear that they agreed with this, and this is not an 
argument. It is just a clarification, and I think that is 
important for the public to know, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
    Mr. Goodlatte. The gentlewoman is correct. I am happy to 
yield to the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. I do appreciate your 
consulting with me earlier about your amendments and the intent 
behind those amendments, and I just want to make clear that 
while I think report language is acceptable, I want to make 
sure that the report language does not in any way indicate that 
we are rolling back current law. I think you agree with that.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I do agree with that. We have no intention 
of rolling back current law. We simply want to make clear that 
when the law says you cannot get content without getting a 
court order, that that will apply to content on the Internet. 
We need to define that, because it is different than content 
when it comes to telephone calls.
    Mr. Boucher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goodlatte. I will yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Boucher. I thank the gentleman very much for bringing 
this concern before the Committee today. I share the concern 
the gentleman has announced that the message line on e-mail and 
the Web pages within a given Web site should not be accessible 
to law enforcement simply through the very minimal standards 
that attach to the use of a pen registered device, and I think 
the gentleman has raised a very important concern, and I want 
to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for agreeing to work with us as 
we address this concern between now and the time this measure 
reaches the floor.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the Chairman also and yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments to title I?
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. I have an amendment at the desk and I move to--
--
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975, offered by Ms. Waters, 
Page 13, Line 23 in paren section 108, strike ``without 
geographic limitation'' and insert ``in any district in which 
significant activities related to the terrorism may have 
occurred.''.
    Page 91, Line 2, section 351, insert significant before 
activities.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me make the observation before 
recognizing the gentlewoman that an amendment to section 351 is 
not in order, because that is the title III. Does the 
gentlewoman wish to modify her amendment to delete that part of 
it?
    Ms. Waters. Well, I thought, Mr. Chairman, that that part 
of it would be consistent with the Page 13, Line 23, section 
108. I think if you did not amend both of them, you would have 
conflicting sections.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentlewoman 
from California will be granted unanimous consent to amend both 
titles on this amendment. Hearing none, so ordered, and the 
gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. There are two provisions 
of H.R. 2975 that deal with nationwide service of search 
warrants. Section 108 of title I applies to electronic evidence 
and section 351 of title III deals with warrants and criminal 
procedure. As written, both sections would allow the government 
to apply for search warrants in any jurisdiction throughout the 
United States. This greatly expanded jurisdiction is not 
limited by requirement that there be a connection between the 
court and the place where the crime occurred. It would 
encourage the government to engage in forum shopping, applying 
for search warrants to judges that it knows will not give close 
scrutiny to the applications. It would also mean that the 
government can apply to courts and jurisdictions far from where 
the actual search occurs so that it becomes very difficult, if 
not impossible, for the person being searched to challenge the 
search.
    I understand the government's interest in nationwide 
searches as a way to deal with the increasing use of electronic 
information. At the same time, we must be careful not to allow 
too much opportunity for forum shopping. My amendment would 
strike a balance between those two competing interests by 
requiring that warrants be issued in districts in which 
significant activities related to the terrorism may have 
occurred. The amendment would limit the ability of the 
government to forum shop, while still accommodating the 
government's need to obtain warrants quickly.
    This is a minor but important technical change to H.R. 
2975. I would urge your support of the amendment. I would think 
that my colleagues would not want significant activities to 
have occurred in California and the government go and shop to 
get a search warrant in Mississippi. It just doesn't make good 
sense. I would ask for an aye vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield back the 
balance of her time?
    Ms. Waters. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I recognize myself for 5 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment. The current law creates 
unnecessary delays and burdens for the government in the 
investigation of terrorist activities and networks that span a 
number of districts, and should the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California be adopted, there can be terrorist 
activity in a certain part of the country, a search warrant can 
be issued, and at the speed of light an e-mail can be sent to 
another part of the country and the government would then have 
to go into court and get another search warrant in order to 
execute it. This could allow valuable evidence to slip through 
the fingers of the government, and a single nationwide search 
warrant would not allow that to happen. I believe that limiting 
search warrant applications in terrorism cases only to 
districts where there is significant terrorism activity will 
not solve the problem of unnecessary delays and burdens, since 
terrorism knows no boundaries and would not limit itself to any 
particular point in the country.
    I would furthermore point out that one of the essential 
parts of the compromise that this bill represents is the 2-year 
sunset provision. If there are abuses such as those of the 
concern of the gentlewoman from California, this Committee will 
have an ample opportunity to review those abuses at the time 
there is legislation introduced to extend the sunset provision 
to some future date.
    So for all of these reasons, I would urge the Committee to 
reject the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Watt. Some of us are confused about which bill we are 
marking up, what we are using as the markup vehicle, because 
this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. It is the printed H.R. 2975, and 
unanimous consent was granted to consider this bill by title. 
So amendments to title I are in order at this time.
    Mr. Watt. Is it this bill?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe so.
    Mr. Watt. Because this--the amendments don't seem to 
correspond with this bill. I guess that is what is raising 
the--people seem to be working off of some--something other----
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Who am I yielding to?
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Delahunt, yes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I think the amendment really refers to--no. I 
am speaking to page 13. It should be page 14, line 2.
    Mr. Watt. Well, not if you were using the other--some other 
draft that we received yesterday, I think is what everybody 
seems to be amending.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, I think we know where this 
amendment--this particular amendment fits in. Let me ask those 
who are planning to offer amendments to make sure that the page 
and line numbers are properly stated on the amendment so that 
everybody knows where it fits in in the bill.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. I will yield to the gentleman if he allows me to.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a copy entitled 
H.R. ``blank'' to Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers, which is not 
the--with an October 2nd date on it, and I think that is what 
we are using--most of us are using to--for the purposes of 
amendment.
    Ms. Waters. If the gentleman will yield, I think that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am informed by my counsel that 
before there is a printed version, the legislative counsel was 
instructed to draft the sections in the Xerox version; and 
after the printed version appeared on the scene, the alleged 
counsel was instructed to draft to that. So I guess it depends 
upon how early the amendments were drafted. Without objection, 
the page and line numbers are conformed on the gentlewoman from 
California's amendment to the printed version of the bill, and 
again the Chair would reiterate his request that those who are 
planning on offering amendments later on in the process make 
the page and line numbers refer to the printed version of today 
rather than the Xeroxed version of yesterday.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Berman, seek recognition?
    Mr. Berman. I move to strike the last----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, there presently is the Waters 
amendment that is pending.
    Mr. Berman. It is just--it is to strike the last word in 
order to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. The summary of 108 put out by the staff says 
that the court with the jurisdiction over the investigation, is 
the court to issue the warrant directly. That of course doesn't 
appear in the language in section 108, and I am wondering if 
staff can clarify if that is true, because if that is true then 
it wouldn't be forum shopping, because that would be the court 
that would have the ability to issue the warrant.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe that section 101 defines 
court of competent jurisdiction, and 108 references back to 
that.
    Mr. Berman. All right. So that in 101----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield? The 
clarification of that will be in the manager's amendment that 
will be offered at the end of title I.
    Mr. Berman. So that--you are telling me that on 108, to get 
this sort of national search warrant, you have to go to the 
court which has jurisdiction over the--where the investigation 
is----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The court with jurisdiction over 
the offense under investigation.
    Mr. Berman. So at----
    Ms. Waters. Or.
    Mr. Berman. Or what? I yield to the gentlelady from 
California for the ``or.''.
    Ms. Waters. Or the United States Court of Appeals having 
jurisdiction over the offense being investigated or----
    Mr. Berman. I can't hear you. Tell us what line you are 
reading.
    Ms. Waters. All right. We are trying to find the right bill 
that we are working from. The section that you are referring 
to, Congressman Berman, states in a District Court of United 
States, including a magistrate----
    Mr. Berman. Could you just tell us the page you are reading 
from?
    Ms. Waters. On page 7, line 14.
    Mr. Berman. The court of competent jurisdiction. Okay.
    Ms. Waters. In a District Court of the United States, 
including a magistrate judge of such a court or any United 
States Court of Appeals having jurisdiction over the offense 
being investigated or.
    Mr. Berman. Well, then, all right. That is very different 
language than the summary, which talks about it----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. All right. But that is the--in other words, the 
``or'' doesn't refer to other jurisdictions. The ``or'' refers 
to----
    Ms. Waters. What does it refer to?
    Mr. Berman. A pen register. In other words--right.
    Ms. Waters. What does ``or'' refer to, somebody?
    Mr. Berman. Here are the different courts of competent 
jurisdiction. For a pen register----
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. Yeah. The question really is, is what comes 
after the ``or'' in the original----
    Mr. Frank. If the gentleman would yield, the ``or'' is in 
the original statute. That then would be picking up most of the 
original statute. So somebody would have to go to the code, but 
the ``or'' would refer to whatever is in the existing statute 
the way that is written.
    Mr. Berman. I mean, if the intention here is to limit the 
ability to grant this national warrant to the place where the 
district----
    Ms. Waters. Significant activity.
    Mr. Berman.--or the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over 
the offense being investigated, then it is--it does deal with 
the issue of the forum shopping, and the concern that causes 
this amendment to rise. Is it the intention in proposing this 
to have that be the place where they have to go?
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would yield, this 
restricts forum shopping. The ``or'' is existing statute. The 
new language for the nationwide search warrant is the court of 
competent jurisdiction in the district or, in the case of Court 
of Appeals, in the circuit where the offense being investigated 
has arisen.
    Ms. Waters. Go ahead.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts?
    Mr. Delahunt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Delahunt. I just want to be clear, because I think that 
the gentlelady has a point, and if I may, I am going to try to 
summarize what I think her concern is in terms of the forum 
shopping, but, however, the intention--and maybe it is not 
adequately expressed in the Committee bill in terms of the--as 
she describes it, forum shopping. I think it is the intention 
of the Committee and the legislative intent here is the court 
of jurisdiction where the offense is committed would be the 
court where the application for the nationwide search warrant 
would be applied for.
    Ms. Waters. That is right.
    Mr. Delahunt. If I am correct, I believe it is the position 
of the Chair that that is consistent with his understanding of 
the Committee's proposal and that it would be taken care of. 
The language would be taken care of in a manager's amendment.
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I will yield to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Waters. First of all, let us make it very clear, even 
though I don't like the idea of being able to get these search 
warrants attached to the person and, you know, all over the 
United States, et cetera, or all over wherever. This amendment 
is simply trying to say that you must get the search warrant in 
the jurisdiction where the significant activity took place. 
Now, you can take that search warrant and go all over the 
United States with it, but you have to get it in the correct 
jurisdiction, and I don't think there is any language in this 
bill that ties it down. This allows for forum shopping where 
you could get the search warrant any place, and the person who 
would want to contest it may have to travel a long distance to 
contest it. I mean, I just think that we can perfect the 
language----
    Mr. Delahunt. I think it is the intention here that the 
government is seeking to stay in one place, if you will, where 
the offense allegedly occurred rather than doing exactly what 
you are saying, traveling all over the country because of the 
speed with which these terrorist groups now operate. So, in 
other words, if an offense was committed in Los Angeles, that 
the Federal District Court in Los Angeles would provide the 
venue for an application for a search warrant.
    Ms. Waters. Right.
    Mr. Delahunt. That search warrant, once approved, could be 
executed in New York or Boston or anywhere. Is that what the 
gentlelady----
    Ms. Waters. That is absolutely true. That is exactly what 
we are trying to do. If you are suggesting that that is what 
the bill intends to do and if you are suggesting for the Chair 
that they will clean it up in the manager's amendment, then the 
job is done.
    Mr. Delahunt. I ask the Chair if that----
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. I will yield to the gentleman, but first the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. I think the Chairman, by his representation, 
made it clear that it is--you go to the court--the District 
Court or the Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over the 
offense being investigated. That is where you have to go. 
Because I think the two issues you have raised,
    Ms. Waters, are both right. The notion of forum shopping 
and then the question of the attack. But as I understand it 
practically speaking, you attack a search warrant in the 
context of a trial where the evidence is seized in that search 
and you are still able to do that wherever that trial takes 
place. So there you don't have to go back to the original court 
which issued the search warrant. You go to the court where the 
prosecution is underway and you seek to throw out the evidence 
gathered in the search warrant, and you can attack the validity 
of the search warrant at that time. So I think in a way both of 
your concerns are quite legitimate, but both are answered by 
the definition of the court of competent jurisdiction.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, and let me further respond to the 
legitimate concerns----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts seek his own time?
    Mr. Frank. Yes, I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman asked 
what came after the ``or.'' I think one of the things we are 
going to need to do is keep the relevant volumes of the code 
on, because what comes after the ``or'' is what is already in 
the code. It isn't amended. And the fear I think was, well, 
``or'' what? And here is what the ``or what.'' the ``or'' 
actually--what we are amending is the Federal jurisdiction. The 
``or'' is the State jurisdiction and here is what comes after 
the ``or.'' it is 3127(2)(B). The ``or'' is a court of general 
criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that 
State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen register, et 
cetera. And that is not being amended.
    So that is the answer. We are amending in here the Federal 
jurisdiction, and we are leaving the current statute with 
regard to State jurisdiction unchanged.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Frank. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are drafting an addition to the 
manager's amendment that I think hits this point. It is 
presently being Xeroxed off, so I would like to ask the 
forbearance of the Committee. Perhaps if the gentlewoman would 
withdraw her amendment without prejudice to reoffering it if 
she doesn't like what is in the manager's amendment.
    Ms. Waters. I have no problems with that, Mr. Chairman. 
Okay.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman--I am sorry. I will yield to the 
gentlewoman.
    Ms. Waters. If what you are suggesting to me is that we 
both understand what we are trying to do and that you are not 
opposed to it--I am certainly not trying to do anything other 
than get it in the proper jurisdiction of significant 
activity--then I have no problems with withdrawing it and 
having you work on it and clean it up.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn, at 
least temporarily. Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to finish. I would 
hope we would have volumes of the code on, because there will 
be other dangling prepositions that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the staff bring volumes of the 
code and a thesaurus on dangling prepositions?
    Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Schiff. Would the Chairman yield on that last point?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized
    for----
    Mr. Schiff. The only precaution that I would offer in the 
redrafting, to address the gentlelady's concerns, is that while 
we all have the events of September 11th very much in mind, 
that may not be the archetype investigation. There may not 
always be a clear court of jurisdiction over the offense. There 
may be in fact many courts of jurisdiction. If, for example, 
you are investigating a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act 
which has not yet taken place, the conspiracy is an offense but 
you cannot necessarily say that a conspiracy between terrorists 
operating in Canada, in Boston, in New York and in Dallas has a 
nexus in only one jurisdiction. And so we don't want to draft 
the language to preclude law enforcement going to an 
appropriate court and getting jurisdiction going after the 
genesis of a terrorist case.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, I 
think the gentleman has correctly stated what is in this bill, 
is that it could be any court where there is terrorist 
activity. An offense can occur in many jurisdictions, but if it 
is running investigations.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Scott. Sometimes we make a differentiation between 
venue and jurisdiction. The court can have jurisdiction but it 
may not be the right venue. Some of these crimes are not 
multijurisdictional. Most of it is in one place, and what the 
gentlelady from California is saying, that if you are going to 
pick a judge, you ought to have the judge--ought to have some 
connection to the crime, that you couldn't have one judge in 
Oklahoma issuing all the search warrants for the country. If 
the crime has been committed in California, you ought to go to 
a California judge. If it has been done in California, New 
York, Illinois, you can go to any of the judges and they can 
issue all the warrants for the case. But the judge ought to 
have some connection to the crime.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would yield, I 
think the change to the manager's amendment addresses these 
concerns. If we can go on to something else and then come back 
to this when everybody sees what the language that is being 
proposed will do, I think we can expedite the business of the 
Committee.
    Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield? Will you yield, 
please, sir, before you move off of this point?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, the time belongs to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
    Ms. Waters. Who has the time?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Excuse me. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, has the time.
    Mr. Frank. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
has an amendment at the desk. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Frank. There is a pencilled change in the one that--
have you got the one with the pencil change that says title I?
    The Clerk. No, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment 
will be designated as an amendment to title I. It was drafted 
as an amendment to various statutory sections, all of which are 
in the Criminal Code.
    Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. The 
Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975----
    Mr. Frank. I would ask that it be considered as read, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. And 
the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, we have had some conversations 
about this and it is a subject I have talked about 
considerably. We will be in this bill enhancing surveillance 
authority. People are nervous about that. I am a supporter of 
enhanced surveillance authority properly used. Indeed, much of 
this bill is going to be an effort to give authority and then 
have safeguards to prevent abuses. I was struck this morning at 
a hearing in the Financial Services Committee when the 
Secretary of Treasury was asked what he thought about a money 
laundering bill sponsored by Mr. LaFalce and Senator Kerry. He 
said I am for it as soon as you put in the right due process 
provisions, and I think that is what we are trying to 
appropriately do here.
    What this amendment does is to build on existing statutes, 
which give a remedy to an individual who has been the subject 
of surveillance and then has had that information 
inappropriately leaked. Obviously that information is to be 
used in intelligence. It is to be used in criminal proceedings. 
The statute authorizes uses. My amendment would not change or 
diminish in any way the authorized uses.
    The current statute, as it has been pointed out by the 
Justice Department, also does allow you to sue if some of your 
information is released but not others. We gather information 
in various ways. There has also been some ambiguity indeed 
about whether or not someone whom that information has been 
appropriately released; i.e., outside the statutory scheme, can 
sue the government. Most of the courts have said yes. It has to 
do with an interpretation of the word ``entity.'' I think we 
want to clear that up. We also want to make it explicit that 
inappropriate disclosure is a violation, not a criminal 
violation here but a civil violation.
    Mr. Frank. So what the amendment does is as follows: First, 
it says that wherever we gather information, whether it is pen 
register, trace and trap or wiretap or whatever, wiretap under 
one statute, wiretap under FISA, if information gained during 
the surveillance is inappropriately released, if it winds up on 
the White House desk and somebody leaks it, if J. Edgar Hoover 
tells bad stories about you, then you have a right to go in 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act as the aggrieved party and 
sue. If you can prove your case--and the statute has a minimum 
of statutory damages. It has been 1,000. This would raise it to 
10,000, not a huge amount, but enough to make sure that it is 
worthwhile.
    It also then says that if someone goes in and wins the 
lawsuit against the government, because surveilled information 
has been inappropriately leaked, the head of that bureau or 
agency either must initiate disciplinary proceedings against 
the leaker or explain in writing to the newly created Assistant 
Inspector General for Civil Liberties why that wasn't done. 
There is no perfect way, but I am trying to increase the 
negative incentive for this kind of leaking. We have had 
situations in the past--and by the way, when we think about it, 
that is what most people are afraid of was surveillance. In 
fact, if you are surveilled and nothing criminal comes out or 
nothing that leads you to law enforcement difficulty and the 
information is then appropriately totally kept secret, you are 
probably not going to be too upset.
    The problem comes when the human beings, often politically 
motivated by either party who are in charge, will in some cases 
use this and will use embarrassing information. Embarrassing 
information was released about Martin Luther King.
    Let me say, Mr. Chairman, if there is in fact anybody who 
could be totally surveilled and not be embarrassed by some of 
the information released, that person has my sympathy. That 
kind of is a dull life to live. I would think any of us would 
not want to say, hey, nothing about me could ever be released 
to my embarrassment. This is a way I think to reassure people 
about the surveillance. It is not perfect, but it does build on 
a basic scheme.
    I yield to the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are prepared to accept this 
amendment. I think the gentleman's points are very well taken, 
and maybe there ought to be quantified damages for 
embarrassment due to these leaks.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman for the yielding and I 
would not want to disparage those who may be more virtuous than 
some of us on the Committee. But are lawyers compensated for 
this proposal, Mr. Frank?
    Mr. Frank. Yes, if you win. Also the damages, the 10,000 is 
a statutory minimum, if in fact you can show under the Federal 
Tort Claims Act, you can show other damages. Remember, under 
the Federal Tort Claims Act, punitive damages are not allowed 
because by definition, the Federal Government is never bad. But 
actual damages, if you were otherwise hurt, those would be 
allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Question is on the floor. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to hear that 
this amendment is being accepted. I just have a question about 
it, Mr. Frank. You say in the first line of the amendment and 
actually under the section, ``by a citizen or long term 
permanent citizen.'' what does long term mean?
    Mr. Frank. It is supposed to be legal. I would ask 
unanimous consent that somebody misinterpreted LPR, ``legal 
permanent resident,'' not ``long term.''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
so modified.
    Mr. Nadler. One other modification. I think you mean that 
the parentheses in that same section should be, ``or against 
any State investigative or law enforcement officer,'' and the 
parentheses should be closed there.
    Mr. Frank. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to correct my 
parentheses.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the second 
modification is agreed to. The question is on----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I would move 
to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. I yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. The question is this. If you are a permanent 
resident of the United States and you are identified in the 
media as the perpetrator of a violent terrorist act and you 
decide to sue under the statute--you believe it has been 
leaked--is there a procedure under the Federal Tort Claims Act 
that mirrors that which exists under the criminal law where 
the--if the defense involved disclosure of national security 
information, that that procedure could be done in camera?
    Mr. Frank. If the gentleman from New York would yield. I 
assume that would be information that was gathered under FISA 
and still be covered by FISA. I would make that explicit.
    Ms. Lofgren. In the amendment it says it shall be governed 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act--the procedures will all be 
under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
    Mr. Frank. I apologize. It was certainly my intention that 
anything gathered under FISA would be covered by all of the 
FISA rules. And I would ask unanimous consent that when we got 
to corrective changes, that we make that change.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank. Those 
in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes 
appear to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed 
to.
    Are there further amendments? The gentleman from 
California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, which is at 
the desk--I have several. This one is to make consistent the 
standards for disclosure of foreign intelligence information.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Berman,  
to make consistent the standards for disclosure of foreign 
intelligence information. A----
    Mr. Berman. I ask unanimous consent.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If we can wait until the amendments 
are distributed.
    The Clerk.--of the bill on page 10. On line 1, insert the 
following after parens--quotation, information, end quote, 
inside parentheses as defined in 50 U.S.----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I do want to 
say how much I appreciate the efforts you and the Ranking 
Member and the Committee staff have made since this proposal 
first came over from the Justice Department and since the 
Committee hearing last week to make this a piece of legislation 
that I believe will be supported by most, if not all, both 
sides of the aisle. I am cosponsor of the bill and I intend to 
vote for it. But I do think there are still some issues that 
need to be fixed and this is one of them.
    Very appropriately, the Justice Department has asked for 
the ability to allow information discovered in the context of a 
criminal investigation, whether it is a--through a grand jury 
testimony in a proceeding, whether it is through a regular 
criminal investigation, whether it is through an electronic 
wiretap or electronic surveillance or whether it is tax 
information to be shared where you are dealing with foreign 
intelligence information, to share that with the agencies 
involved in gathering, disseminating and acting on foreign 
intelligence information.
    There is--particularly now and perhaps before, there is a 
compelling case for allowing that kind of information sharing. 
The proposal that was originally submitted I think was--in 
several respects was too loose. It allowed information sharing 
with any government employee and without any limits as to the 
purpose. The version now before us has made some significant 
changes. If it is grand jury information that is going to be 
shared, this has to be done through a court order. I don't 
think one needs a court order in the context of either the 
regular criminal investigation or in the context of the sharing 
of tax information. But I do think the bill is deficient in 
that where you are going with a Title III wiretap and 
information sharing under that electronic surveillance that the 
court that supervised and made the decision to grant permission 
for the electronic surveillance should be considered before the 
information is shared.
    So one part of this amendment requires the court to 
intervene in that process. The second effort is to try and put 
some greater limit on the people who can get this foreign 
intelligence information. And we have taken language that was 
used by the Ways and Means Committee in limiting who can see 
this. The legislation now before us by virtue of the Chairman 
and the Ranking Member's efforts limits this information to 
people in the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Department of 
State, other protected agencies, including the Secret Service. 
I think that is the basic group of agencies that are allowed to 
see this, to people in their official performance of their 
official duties.
    I agree with the limitation on the agencies, but I believe 
the limitation to people in the performance of their official 
duties is very vague and unclear and at least in theory could 
allow huge numbers of people in those agencies who have no 
business seeing this foreign intelligence information, allow 
them to get this information even though there is no relevance 
to anything that they are particularly doing. And I have 
substituted some different language used on the tax information 
that would limit the information from a grand jury, from a 
court ordered electronic surveillance or for a general criminal 
investigation. I understand there are concerns about that 
language, and perhaps we can have a colloquy on that.
    The other two amendments I understand are acceptable to 
Chairman Sensenbrenner. One defines foreign intelligence 
information in the fashion in which it is defined in the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. It picks up that 
definition and with respect to all of these floor information 
sharing provisions. And finally, it removes the provision under 
criminal investigations for notwithstanding any other provision 
of law which negates the obligations and limitations both for 
grand jury information sharing and electronic--court ordered 
electronic surveillance information sharing.
    So we have tried to put all of these into one amendment and 
I am prepared to make--when I get a sense from the Chairman of 
his reaction to this amendment, I am prepared to seek unanimous 
consent to scale back this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes and not take all 
of the time. I believe that the material on the gentleman's 
amendment, line 1 of section 103 and on page 23, lines 23 and 
24 of section 154, is very meritorious, and I would hope that 
that would be split out of the rest of the amendment and be 
adopted.
    The material on line 3 of section 103, at the end of 
section 103, the material that is added on page 24, line 4 and 
on page 92, line 3, I think needs a little bit more work, and I 
would pledge to work with the gentleman from California between 
now and the time this bill comes to the floor or in conference 
Committee to be able to attempt to fine-tune these items. I 
think the gentleman is going in the right direction.
    Three of the points I think were across the goal line and 
the other ones I think we are getting there.
    Mr. Berman. In that case, Mr. Chairman, with the 
understanding that we don't have any kind of agreement on this 
issue, I still would like to understand why it is not 
appropriate to seek a court order from the court that allowed 
the electronic surveillance for purposes of title III criminal 
investigations before you shared. Understanding that is 
something we will have to discuss further and accepting very 
much your indication of the willingness to try and more clearly 
limit the number of people in these agencies who will get this 
foreign intelligence information and that we will work on 
language between now and the Rules Committee, I would ask 
unanimous consent to----
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield? Is it your 
intention, Mr. Berman, to modify your amendment here and move 
on with that part that might win the approval of the majority 
of the Committee or to shove the entire matter to work on it 
under the Sensenbrenner promise?
    Mr. Berman. I don't want to test what part would win the 
majority of the Committee. And therefore I was going to take 
the guidance from the Chairman and simply scale back my 
amendment to include the--tying the definition under FISA and 
the removal of the language, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, and leave the amendment with those provisions 
in and strike the other provisions and work out the limitation 
on people who get the information between now and the Rules 
Committee.
    Mr. Conyers. I hold my high compliment and praise for you 
until that takes place.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Just so that we are clear on what 
is agreed to and what is on the table for further discussion, 
without objection, the amendment is modified to include the 
language in section 103 on page 10, line 1. The language in 
section 154 of the bill on page 23, lines 23 and 24 and the 
rest of what is in the amendment will be deleted. Under that 
understanding, without objection, the amendment is so modified. 
The question is asked----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I do have a concern and perhaps it could be 
alleviated through the discussion and reflection in the 
Committee report. But taking a look at the limitations in the 
immigration area where people would be responding to terrorist 
incidents, threats or activities, generally that is not a task 
of the Immigration Service. I can foresee, although a 
completely made-up hypothetical, let us say that we through 
intelligence sources find out that a particular country has--
there has been birth record fraud and that was found through 
FISA means. But the promulgator of the student visa regulations 
needs to have an understanding of what is occurring in order to 
draft these regulations so that the fraud from that particular 
country is--gets, say, for example, special scrutiny or 
biometrics or something of that nature. I just think that--I 
agree with the gentleman's desire to limit this to people whose 
business it is to know about it, but I am fearful that the 
language in here may be too restrictive. And I am wondering if 
we could--I don't mind doing it today, but between now and the 
floor, work through and invite the Justice Department as well 
to come up with some further----
    Mr. Berman. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. That is exactly the point I think the Chairman 
perhaps was making and, based on his recognition that the 
present bill doesn't adequately limit the number of people and 
that perhaps my proposal limits it too much, we are going to 
try and find an acceptable middle ground here.
    Ms. Lofgren. But we are going to vote on this right now?
    Mr. Berman. No. I have withdrawn that part from the 
amendment.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. I will yield.
    Mr. Delahunt. I suggest maybe that Mr. Berman and the Chair 
and appropriate staffs could work out language which would 
provide for special designations in terms of the officials who 
would have--would be privy to this particular information. I am 
sure there are ways to work it out, and I am confident.
    Mr. Berman. I do think that is one way to skin this cat. 
You authorize each agency to develop a list of people 
appropriate or positions appropriate to receive this 
information.
    Ms. Lofgren. I thank the Chairman, and I think I had 
misunderstood which was coming in and which was going out, and 
I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Berman 
amendment, as modified. Those in favor will signify by saying 
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, 
and the amendment as modified is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments? Gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Might I strike the last word only to remind 
the Chair and the membership that at 4:00 o'clock we had a 
briefing classified with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State 
Department and the Defense Department, and a number of Members 
have indicated that they thought it in their interest to attend 
such a meeting. I offer this reluctantly because we are going 
at a nice clip, but at the same time we are under a--I don't 
think that these members of the executive branch have summoned 
us through our leadership to the floor for a secret briefing 
for nothing, and I think that it may be more appropriate that 
we retire with the agreement and understanding that we will 
return as soon as that briefing is over.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair announced at the 
beginning of this markup at 2:00 o'clock that it is important 
for preserving the jurisdiction of this Committee that this 
Committee report this bill out today so that the Committee 
report can be filed no later than Monday. It is the intention 
of the leadership to bring this bill up on the floor next week. 
We have a number of amendments that are left to be debated. I 
do not wish to keep Members of the Committee here until late at 
night.
    At the time this markup was scheduled, the secret briefing 
had not been noticed. That happened earlier today. With all due 
respect, all of us have got conflicts on our time, and I 
believe that it is important that this Committee continue on 
with its markup.
    Mr. Conyers. May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it was our 
leadership that scheduled the secret meeting. It wasn't the 
Committee, and I am sure that they had under contemplation that 
this Committee would be meeting at this time. That was also 
scheduled. So would it be too much to observe that the 
leadership apparently had taken that into consideration?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, I 
don't believe that they did that, and the leadership has told 
me that we have to get this bill out today. This is 
particularly important, since I understand the mysterious 
terrorism bill might be on the full Senate floor tomorrow.
    Mr. Chabot. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. I share some of the concerns with the gentleman 
from Michigan and could we perhaps hold votes or roll votes 
until after the hearing is over. That might be some middle 
ground that might make some sense.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I can't thank you enough for 
the persistence you have given to this bill and the bipartisan 
negotiations that have taken place. I would only suggest that a 
meeting called of this level warrants the full participation of 
the Members here, whether there can be a compromise that 
Members are able to go over for 30 minutes from 4:00 to 4:30 to 
hear whatever the presentations are----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the Committee is 
recessed until 4:30. And again, we are going to finish this 
bill tonight.
    Mr. Conyers. May I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
    [recess.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I ask that a dragnet be set out 
into both conference rooms and ask the Members to return and so 
as not to prejudice anybody, it is my intention while people 
are coming back from the briefing to take up the two 
noncontroversial bills and dispose of them and then go back to 
the terrorism bill.
    We will now return to the antiterrorism bill. When the 
Committee recessed, title I was considered as read and open for 
amendment at any point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, seek recognition?
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975, offered by Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered 
as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Mr. Delahunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend to withdraw 
this amendment in recognition of the effort in terms of the 
consensus that has been developed between yourself and the 
Ranking Member and Members of the Committee to report out a 
bill that reflects a thoughtful consensus. Before I describe 
the amendment, however, which as I said I won't press, but I 
think it is important to raise a concern that I have and I know 
that others share.
    Let me commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member 
for having followed regular order. We have had time to 
deliberate, to review, to assimilate and analyze, and as a 
result, we have a vastly improved product that was presented to 
us 2 weeks ago. I think this happens to be a very good moment 
in the history of this particular Committee and a good moment 
for the Nation, because clearly this is a far superior product 
than what was initially presented.
    The amendment would modify section 153 of the bill to 
retain the current primary purpose standard for initial 
applications for electronic surveillance and physical search 
orders under FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
But it would permit extensions of those orders to meet the 
lower significant purpose standard currently in--or in the bill 
that is before us now.
    The FISA statute sets up a special judicial regime for 
considering surveillance and search recourse in the foreign 
intelligence context. Current law requires the Attorney General 
or certain other high officials to certify that the purpose of 
the wiretap or search is to obtain foreign intelligence 
information.
    Now, this requirement has been interpreted by a court 
decision to mean that foreign intelligence gathering must be 
the primary purpose of the application, although that phrase 
does not occur in the statute. The proponents of the weaker 
significant purpose standard argue that the change is needed to 
enable Federal authorities to share foreign intelligence 
information with criminal investigators in complex terrorism 
cases without having to go back and get a so-called title III 
order, which has different standards, and it is reflective of 
what occurs in a traditional criminal investigation by Federal 
law enforcement agencies.
    Now, civil liberties advocates argue, and appropriately so, 
that the weakest standard will enable the Federal authorities 
to obtain a FISA order where foreign intelligence gathering is 
not their real purpose, thus invading the probable cause 
requirements under title III. This amendment is an attempt to 
strike a balance, and I would hope that Members of the 
Committee would consider it as the legislation moves forward 
between those two competing concerns.
    It would help allay fears of abuse by requiring that the 
initial application meet the current threshold, the primary 
purpose standard. But once the FISA court has made the 
determination that the applicants are engaged in legitimate 
bona fide intelligence gathering evidence, the amendment would 
remove the current disincentive to information sharing by 
authorizing the certifying authorities to meet the low standard 
that is embraced in this bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would you give me some additional time, max?
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes and yields to the other gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. As 
I was saying, under current law an application to extend 
wiretap or search authority must meet the same standard as in 
the original application, yet the reality is, is that as 
terrorism investigations evolve and expand, the intelligence 
gathering purpose can become increasingly intertwined with 
ongoing criminal investigations, and it does create a risk a 
vital foreign intelligence gathering effort that has been 
properly authorized initially under FISA will be unable to 
continue because it no longer meets the purpose test that is 
required to be certified.
    By minimizing that risk, this amendment would facilitate 
legitimate information sharing, and it would do so without 
creating a risk that criminal wiretaps and searches will be 
undertaken without a proper showing of probable cause.
    Finally, it is my opinion that the amendment will increase 
the likelihood that section 153 will be upheld under the fourth 
amendment. I have reviewed the Justice Department's 
constitutional analysis of the significant purpose standard, 
and while it is well crafted, I think it fails. The bill fails 
constitutional muster. The bill is being taken up during a 
national emergency, when arguably judicial deference is at its 
highest point. No one can predict what the court will do months 
or years from now, and I think we would be wise to write a 
provision that has a greater chance of withstanding security.
    With that, I understand that maybe one of my colleagues 
wishes to speak on the amendment, but otherwise I yield back to 
the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts wish to withdraw his amendment?
    Mr. Frank. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I think I have said 
all I want to say on this subject. So I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Can we auction time? Going once.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Frank. Well, I will take back my time if the gentleman 
from Virginia doesn't have an objection.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. This is an important amendment, 
because without it, it would allow the foreign intelligence 
standard to be used for an initial investigation, when in fact 
the primary purpose is the criminal investigation, and you are 
doing this without the probable cause. In fact, the FISA 
standard, which is intelligence gathering, can be used, as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts said, as an excuse to evade the 
probable cause standard.
    So the standard is--I mean, there is no standard. You 
basically are profiling to determine who is going to be 
investigated. Now, remember this is not just terrorism that we 
are investigating. You could have routine criminal 
investigations going on without a probable cause that a crime 
has been committed. You are just intelligence gathering. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts, by his amendment, would suggest 
at least the beginning of this thing ought to be, if it is 
primarily a criminal investigation, ought to be a criminal 
investigation with a criminal investigation standard. If you 
are going to evade that standard, the primary purpose ought to 
have been at least the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
standard for a foreign intelligence investigation.
    I would hope that the amendment would be adopted or at 
least the language or spirit of it be incorporated later on. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Delahunt. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Frank. I would yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I move to 
withdraw my amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Do you have an 
amendment?
    Mr. Scott. I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is SEC 
152.001.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will first find the 
correct amendment and then report it.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Scott: 
Page 23, line 14, strike the second comma and insert ``only for 
such periods of time when the target's presence at the location 
of the place where the electronic surveillance is to be 
conducted has been ascertained by the applicant and when the 
electronic surveillance is conducted on the target.''.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment would clarify that when you have this roving wiretap 
being conducted under FISA, that you have to ascertain that the 
target is actually at the place where the tap is being 
conducted and actually the one using the phone. As is 
otherwise, the tapping apparatus should not be turned on, or if 
it is on, it should be turned off as clear--as soon as it is 
clear the target is not using the phone.
    Now, the standard under FISA is less than the criminal side 
standard, in that you only have to show relevance to a foreign 
intelligence gathering information investigation rather than 
showing probable cause. When you have this roving wiretap, any 
phone that the target may be using can be bugged. So the phones 
of innocent citizens such as the next-door neighbor or other 
acquaintances of the target may be tapped as soon as it is 
ascertained that the person may be using that phone. We want to 
make sure that the target is the only one being listened in to, 
not the privacy of the next-door neighbor or others.
    In fact, even pay phones will be tapped under this process, 
and people unrelated to the investigation who don't even know 
the target shouldn't have their private conversations listened 
in on.
    In fact, under FISA, you are not necessarily doing 
terrorism. It is any foreign intelligence information 
gathering, and if this is not adopted, anybody using the corner 
pay phone might have their innocent conversations involving 
their health care, their psychiatric or marital problems or 
financial problems listened in on if we do not ascertain that 
it is the target using the phone, not some other innocent 
party.
    It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that this is what we 
have been told they are trying to do, and we just want that in 
the statute so people will be comfortable that if they use the 
corner pay phone that some foreign--and agent of a foreign 
government might also use, that their private conversations are 
still private.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Bryant.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I am 
going to ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Current 
minimization requirements for FISA wiretaps are classified, and 
Mr. Scott's amendment adversely affects current law with 
respect to the FISA wiretaps. And in effect, as we have seen 
with many of the amendments today, unfortunately this amendment 
would roll back current law.
    The Attorney General guidelines to the extent that they can 
be discussed in an unclassified meeting already require the 
government to verify that the agent of the foreign power is 
using the facility in question before they can intercept that 
facility, and, Mr. Chairman, if I could suggest that we work 
with Mr. Scott about his desire to draft legislative language 
dealing with the ascertainment issue between now and the floor, 
and if you will consider withdrawing the amendment, I know that 
you and I will work in good faith with him.
    If the amendment is not withdrawn, I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment. Once again, we should not 
roll back existing law.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I would ask the gentleman whether or not these 
FISA intelligence gathering taps can be done on people who are 
not involved in terrorism?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Scott, to reclaim my time, I don't know that 
that can be guaranteed. Quite frankly, that gets into 
classified information I will be glad to discuss with you, but 
I know that that is the intent.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Scott. I will yield to the gentleman from California--
--
    Mr. Smith. Excuse me. The gentleman from North Carolina, or 
to the gentleman from California? Mr. Berman, yes.
    Mr. Berman. Well, my understanding, just from preparing for 
this markup, is that a FISA wiretap is directed against a 
foreign power or the agent of a foreign power where there is--
they have satisfied the FISA court that there is relevant 
information on a foreign intelligence matter. It is not just 
simply focused on terrorism. It can be focused on espionage or 
any other foreign intelligence information. That is an existing 
law.
    Mr. Smith. That is my understanding, Mr. Berman. If that is 
the question.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield? Again?
    Mr. Smith. I will yield to Mr. Scott, yes.
    Mr. Scott. I would ask whether or not this information 
gathering can be gathering information on things that aren't 
even crimes? It could be the political situation back at home 
of the foreign agent. That would be intelligence gathering. Can 
you get a wiretap for that kind of thing?
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. To my understanding, that is what FISA is all 
about. That is correct.
    Mr. Berman. FISA has a definition of foreign intelligence 
information. We have in fact just adopted that definition on 
the information sharing amendment. If you would give me a 
moment, I can read it to you, but it covers--I mean, it covers 
matters within that definition on different kinds of foreign 
operations.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Texas 
yield? I do have the foreign intelligence information 
definition.
    Mr. Smith. Okay. I will be happy to yield to the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The FISA act says, quote, foreign 
intelligence information means information that relates to and 
if concerning the United States person is necessary to the 
ability of the United States to protect against, A, actual or 
potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power 
or an agent of a foreign power, B, sabotage or international 
terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power or, 
C, clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence 
service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a 
foreign power, or information with respect to a foreign power 
or foreign territory that relates to and if concerning the 
United States person is necessary to the national defense or 
the security of the United States and the conduct of the 
foreign affairs of the United States, unquote.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. I am concerned that you are inquiring about the 
wrong thing. I thought Mr. Scott's concern was not so much what 
FISA covers, what the roving wiretap would cover, but who it 
would cover. Is it limited solely to agents of a foreign 
government, and if so, then you would--wouldn't there have to 
be some ascertainment that that agent of the foreign government 
was using the phone rather than--and wouldn't it be cut off if 
somebody other than the agent of the foreign government were 
using the phone?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose the gentleman from 
North Carolina----
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt.--and I will yield to Mr. Smith or Mr. Berman to 
perhaps answer the question.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Watt, let me try to respond briefly to your 
point, and I think you did accurately describe Mr. Scott's 
concern. We are advised by the Department of Justice and I am a 
little constrained in what I can say, quite frankly, at their 
advice, but we are advised by the Department of Justice that 
their ability to impede the actions of terrorists would be 
constrained under the language in Mr. Scott's amendment.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman from Texas yield?
    Mr. Smith. Just a minute. And that is why I offered a while 
ago to sit down with Mr. Scott and with the Department of 
Justice between now and the floor to see if we couldn't satisfy 
their concerns, but I am afraid to some extent some of these 
concerns by the Department of Justice simply cannot be 
discussed in open court.
    Mr. Delahunt. Does the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. I will yield to the gentleman Mr. Berman and then 
to Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Berman. The one concern--I have no idea exactly what 
the classified guidelines are regarding what happens. It is 
limited to an agent not of a foreign government but of a 
foreign power, which can include a government. It can also 
include a foreign terrorist organization. I have no idea what 
the classified guidelines say, but the one question I have 
about the gentleman's amendment is it looks to me like this 
amendment would limit--might limit what is now given to them 
under existing law rather than simply--in other words, the 
amendment is dealing with the multipoint authority and the 
roving wiretap, but it looks to me like the language applies 
whether it is a roving wiretap or it is a traditional wiretap, 
and I just feel uncomfortable voting to restrict existing law 
without understanding--I would like to make sure that we are 
not doing that.
    Mr. Watt. I yield to Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. I have before me a copy of the FISA act, and 
the object of a surveillance must be either a foreign power, 
which can include a foreign government or component thereof, 
whether or not recognized by the United States, a variety of 
other enumerated groups, including a group engaged in 
international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof, 
as well as an agent of a foreign power which can be any person 
other than the United States person, and activities have to 
be----
    Mr. Watt. You are answering the wrong question. The 
question is can you monitor the phone conversations either with 
a roving wiretap or with a nonroving wiretap of somebody who is 
not the agent of a foreign power or a government. It doesn't 
help me to know what a foreign power or government is defined 
as. This limits it to that person and to the target, and that 
may be already the case.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. Just give me a moment. There is in the 
application for the surveillance, the wiretap under FISA, the 
need or the necessity in the application to outline so-called 
minimization procedures, and those, however, are classified.
    Mr. Watt. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you. I think as I read this, the 
amendment does not go beyond or limit existing law. Rather, it 
limits the new multipoint authority proposed in the bill, 
because under current law a court can order identified parties 
to assist in the installation of these wiretaps. The multipoint 
authority says where they are trying to thwart an investigation 
the court can order that specified persons or other such 
persons also have to assist and then law enforcement has the 
discretion to go to these other persons and say that they are 
bound by this order.
    So I think that it limits the additional power in the bill. 
The question I think raises whether it places too great a 
limitation, because I think what is really at stake in the 
proposed amendment is the difficulty of knowing when to turn on 
and when to turn off the wiretap, and that involves----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
North Carolina has expired. For what purpose the gentleman from 
Alabama, Mr. Bachus, seek recognition?
    Mr. Bachus. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bachus. Let me say this. The conversation we are having 
I think goes even beyond this amendment, and I think it answers 
the question of the gentleman from North Carolina about how far 
the government can go in the surveillance, and that really the 
answer to the question is the Constitution gives the President 
the right to conduct foreign affairs, and every President since 
George Washington has exercised its duty to defend and protect 
our country.
    Now, there have been people since our country began, since 
the first President, have questioned this constitutional right. 
There have been a lots said about it, but there--and some 
people don't like that, quite frankly. They don't think that 
ought to be the law, but the law is that the President has the 
authority to conduct foreign affairs and to protect and defend 
the country from all foreign powers, agents, operative, 
terrorists.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. And let me further say that under this power, 
and it is well established, they have the right to electronic 
surveillance. They have the right to conduct domestic covert 
searches, and they can do this without judicial authority. I 
mean, they don't----
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. They don't have to have judicial approval for 
this. And they cannot--not only can they have surveillance of a 
foreign agent, but they can also have surveillance of a U.S. 
citizen suspected of giving aid or comfort to an enemy.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. And one thing about these amendments and one 
thing about anything in this bill that limits the ability of 
the President to do this is are we tying his hands of a 
constitutional right and really a duty and an obligation, not 
only a constitutional right but a duty and an obligation of the 
President to take these actions to defend the country? And if 
we had any doubt about whether he ought to have that right, it 
ought to have been resolved on September the 11th.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I will yield.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. The problem is--if it was confined to 
foreign affairs, it wouldn't be a problem. What the problem is, 
is that you are using this as your criminal law, because you 
are going back and forth, and interrelationship between FISA 
and the criminal wiretap is the thing, and we just--and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment pointed out that you 
have eliminated the primary purpose, and so the primary purpose 
in these wiretaps could be a criminal investigation, and that 
is why we are trying to get some----
    Mr. Bachus. What I am saying, as long as any part of that 
surveillance, any part of that search is related to the 
conducting of foreign affairs; i.e., defending the country, 
protecting our national interests----
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. To conduct that surveillance, and a lot of what 
I think the President is requesting and the Administration is 
requesting this body to do, well, they already have the power 
to do.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bachus. But I think we ought to support it as opposed 
to restrict it. But this is very basic. It is a 
constitutional----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Alabama.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Bachus. To conduct foreign affairs.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Berman, seek recognition?
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. There is this funny other part of the 
Constitution about unreasonable searches and seizures, but--
which does constrain----
    Mr. Bachus. If the gentleman will yield for that. That 
applies to U.S. citizens and to some----
    Mr. Berman. First of all, we have to clarify a couple of 
things. You can be a U.S. citizen and be an agent of a foreign 
power and be subject to a FISA search surveillance order. 
Secondly, your notion that there has to be no judicial 
intervention, I don't know where you are getting that from. 
Even if it is from gathering from U.S. persons or--who are 
agents of foreign powers, in the United States my understanding 
is you have to go either to a court, a regular court of 
jurisdiction if it is a criminal investigation or to the FISA 
court if it is a foreign intelligence matter and get judicial 
approval. That is in the law. So I thought I----
    Mr. Bachus. We have created that court, but prior to that 
court's existence----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Berman. So I just want to make those two points, but 
there are two different issues. Mr. Delahunt was raising the 
issue of the purpose. Now Mr. Scott is raising the issue in the 
context of the expansion of authority for the roving wiretap.
    Mr. Scott. Who else you can listen in to under the excuse 
of going after the target?
    Mr. Berman. But that is an issue--I mean, I think there is 
an answer to that issue. I just am not smart enough to know it, 
but I think that is an issue under existing authority and under 
this new authority, and my guess is, there is a--it is dealt 
with--I mean, I know the FISA law very specifically talks about 
this, but then I think there is--I yield to the gentleman from 
California who seems to actually know something about this law.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Under 
existing law if you think someone who is an agent of a foreign 
power is going to be using a certain electronic communication, 
you can go to third parties to get assistance to do a wiretap 
on that line, and if you think they are going to move from one 
line to the other, you can go back to court and get authority 
to go to another line. You don't have to make the showing that 
is requested in this amendment that they are only going to be 
there for the time, et cetera, which you only may be able to 
ascertain by listening in on the line. I am not sure how you 
will know in advance necessarily when they will be using that 
line.
    Under the bill, I think the Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill, 
which has been narrowed from the Attorney General's proposal, 
the bill says that where a significant purpose is this foreign 
intelligence purpose and where there is--the court finds that 
the action of the target may have the effect of thwarting 
identification because they are going from line to line to 
line, where you have met those standards, you can get an order 
that doesn't specify just simply one custodian that you can go 
to for the wiretap but gives you the flexibility to move 
quickly, because when we are talking about an era where, as the 
Chairman refers to, uses disposable cell phones, they may only 
use that line for one conversation, and if you have to wait to 
ascertain that they are using that line out of a very 
legitimate concern that maybe someone else is using that line, 
the conversation may be there and gone before you have actually 
established the ability to do the intercept.
    Mr. Berman. Can I just reclaim my time? Just to take what 
you said, if the guy is in a hotel, under this new authority 
that this bill would provide you don't have to just name the 
custodian of the phone lines at the hotel, because if he is 
going to go to another hotel the next night you can use that 
warrant, that order, to get the unnamed hotel that he ends up 
at on the next night to also enforce that order.
    Mr. Scott. But can you also listen in to next night's guest 
at the last hotel?
    Mr. Berman. My guess is you can't, but that is a guess. You 
know he has checked out. You can't be purposely listening to 
other people, but this is true whether it is a stationary 
wiretap or a roving wiretap. In other words, these are good 
questions, but they are about existing law, as well as about 
the new authority under the law. That is my only point.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Massachusetts--Mr. Frank, I think you have already been 
recognized, haven't you?
    Mr. Frank. No. That was on Mr. Delahunt's amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Then the gentleman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask to strike the 
requisite number of words to raise a question because I am not 
fully aware. This is an example of I think a problem many of us 
have in terms of the bill. Thanks to the collaboration of the 
Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, the bill has been 
focused, and I find myself in this instance and in many others 
in agreement with the way it is conceptualized; that is, yes, 
clearly given the evolution of communications, wiretap 
authority should catch up with the mobility of communications.
    The question I have here, as elsewhere, is have we done the 
best job of executing that agreed upon concept? The point that 
the gentleman from Virginia is raising is this, and I think he 
is not here objecting to the notion of the multiple 
wiretapping. What he is saying is that does, however--once you 
have gone from the one phone in one place to multiple phones, 
you have increased law enforcement's ability to catch up with 
the people you are surveilling, which is good, but you have 
also widened the net so that innocent people might get swept up 
in it. And that is the response to the gentleman from Alabama.
    The gentleman from Virginia's concern is precisely American 
citizens or others whose conversations may be overheard because 
we now have this broader authority. And so the question is how 
do we do the best we can? We will never get it to perfection, 
so that you get the legitimate target of the surveillance 
listened to on this phone and that phone but not other people, 
and this--one of the things--I have been looking at it here and 
it does talk about the minimization procedures, and I would 
yield if anyone--I know my friend in the law enforcement--the 
experience of my friend. What are the minimization procedures? 
I would yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Delahunt. Well, again they are different under the so-
called FISA act but they exist. Let us presume that in the 
hypothetical--in a hypothetical situation where it is the 
target, it is not a roving wiretap but it is a phone, they 
still have to comply, the government does, with minimization 
procedures. For example, if the son or daughter gets on the 
phone and the conversation is overheard, then there will be, 
even though it is not the same as in a typical criminal 
investigation, minimization requirements.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Delahunt. Yes.
    Mr. Frank. Minimization procedure is what we might call in 
a more technical word hanging up. I mean, I guess----
    Mr. Delahunt. Exactly.
    Mr. Frank. Let me ask my friend from Virginia----
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Frank. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Schiff. I just want to clarify. It is not necessarily 
correct that minimization means hanging up. Depending whether 
or not it is FISA or criminal procedure, the procedure may 
actually mean leaving on the machine but not----
    Mr. Frank. Not listening.
    Mr. Schiff. Not listening or----
    Mr. Frank. I have heard that. I know they are going to be 
tough. But it is a tough issue that we understand. But here is 
my question to the gentleman from Virginia and this may be 
alleviated. If in fact finding out that the target is there and 
ascertainment of the target, if those are conditions precedent, 
then I think there is a problem. The question is--I mean, if 
you require that before they can do this they have to know this 
with some degree of assuredness, that can be a problem. If in 
fact they can be told to try but if they find out that it 
wasn't the target, et cetera, then immediately they have to 
bring in the minimization procedures, then I think it is less 
of a problem.
    So the question is, do they have to have--how clear do they 
have to be about this beforehand, or does this mean that once 
they have done some of this wiretapping, if in fact it turns 
out they don't meet these conditions, then they immediately 
have to get into the minimization. I yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. The intent is that if you have put a bug on a 
pay phone to track down a named target, that you don't listen 
in on everybody----
    Mr. Frank. Well, I think the gentleman has answered the 
question. It makes me feel better about the amendment; that is, 
it is not his intention to prevent putting the bug on the pay 
phone. It is the requirement that very strict minimization 
procedures be followed on any of these phones that are tapped 
or other communications, as soon as it becomes clear that it is 
not the right target. Is that--I would yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Scott. That is the point. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
from Texas has indicated a willingness to work on this, and I 
am willing to withdraw the amendment with that understanding. I 
prolonged the discussion for the purpose of venting what the 
various concerns were.
    Mr. Frank. I hope this is the model that is--on a lot of 
these we have conceptual agreement and a lot of work may be 
done to make sure we have it right.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. Are 
there further amendments to title I.
    If not, the Chairman offers a manager's amendment on behalf 
of himself and the gentleman from Michigan, and the Clerk will 
report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Technical amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner 
and Mr. Conyers.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendments follow:]
    

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will recognize himself 
briefly to explain the amendment.
    First, there are technical corrections which changes two 
numbers. Second, it includes provisions in that unanimously 
agreed to and amendments by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Hyde, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, as 
previously agreed to.
    The Chair yields back the balance of his time.
    The question is on----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, we don't even have a copy of 
this yet.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, do you 
have a statement? The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With reference to the 
manager's amendment, I want to begin by thanking you for 
including a number of Members' suggestions from our side that 
are involved in the manager's amendment, and I think that 
argues for wide support on the Committee for it.
    First, we contain language requested by the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Berman, which would provide the Department of 
Justice with the authority to designate terrorist organizations 
concurrently with the Secretary of State to safeguard against 
wrongful designation. The Secretary and Attorney General would 
have mutual veto power over designations.
    The second item I would bring to your attention would 
incorporate an amendment suggested by the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Waters, which would help prevent forum shopping 
by law enforcement by ensuring that nationwide warrants are 
brought in a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
the investigation relative to the amendment that she proposed 
earlier.
    Third, we contain in the manager's provision a useful 
clarification that provides Internet service providers written 
certification when they are issued roving wiretap orders.
    Finally, we contain authorizations for additional law 
enforcement funding, as well as the study of biometric 
identification at border checkpoints requested by the gentleman 
from Illinois, former Chairman Hyde.
    I think those are important provisions that would make this 
a palatable manager's amendment for most of the Committee 
Members.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back his 
time?
    Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
    Mr. Frank. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. I want to speak in support of this amendment. I 
want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member for 
working so well together constructively, both substantively and 
procedurally, and I think if we--and I realize not everybody is 
going to be for this bill and there are going to be differences 
and there are some amendments I would like to see, but if you 
go back to where we were a few weeks ago when we got the 
package and some people were expecting it done very rapidly, I 
think the procedure and the substance both held up very well, 
and as a Member of the minority, I want to particularly express 
what I think many of us on our side feel towards our Ranking 
Member.
    This is a very difficult issue. It is a particularly 
difficult issue for him in a lot of ways, and his role in this 
has really been a model of responsibility, and even those who 
still have some disagreements on it I think now are much more 
on point, I think join me in expressing their very deep 
admiration for the leadership he has shown along with you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back his time.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I--perhaps this is just an 
inquiry--I want to speak to one section in title I, but it is 
just to strike the last word and make a point.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. I would like to turn the Committee's attention 
to section 105 relating to computer trespassers and ask if the 
Chairman might with his staff take a look at this provision 
between now and the time this bill goes to the floor. The bill 
allows the government under this provision at the request of 
Internet service providers--this deals with the computer 
trespassers and cyber attacks, and there are some very 
important provisions in here, but I think it is drafted in a 
fashion that is too open-ended because it doesn't limit the 
intercepts that law enforcement can undertake at the request of 
an Internet service provider or other owner of a protected 
computer. It doesn't limit the intercepts to the user's--the 
authorized user's communications to or through the protected 
commuter in the course of an attack or a hacking.
    This bill, I hope inadvertently--by the way it is drafted, 
this provision seems to allow a nonjudicially supervised tap of 
the home telephone of the unauthorized computer user, allows to 
read the e-mails of that unauthorized computer user or monitor 
their Web surfing. And by including the wire as well as the 
electronic communications, it makes it pretty clear that this 
allows telephone taps of somebody who happens to be a cyber 
attacker. I support the intercepting of the cyber attacker's 
communications through the unprotected computer, but the notion 
that in this situation and only in this situation we are going 
to let the owner of the unprotected computer get law 
enforcement to wiretap that person's phone without ever going 
to court I think is a terrible overreach.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I will be happy to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think the gentleman makes a good 
point. We will take a look at it between now and going to the 
floor.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. Be happy to.
    Mr. Conyers. I want to commend him for raising this, 
because it is an important thing that I know you and your staff 
have been working on and that we might be able to get some of 
the rough edges off of it, and I will join the Chairman in that 
undertaking.
    Mr. Berman. I appreciate that, and with that I yield back 
the balance of my time, except I want to thank you for 
including one of my amendments in your manager's amendment.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, one on the 
amendment involving the jurisdiction over the offense being 
investigated. The jurisdiction and venue are sometimes used 
interchangeably. Is it the legislative intent, Mr. Chairman, 
that the word ``jurisdiction'' would include venue? I mean, you 
could have an armed robbery at a location--Federal location in 
Virginia. You could try it in California if the defendant 
didn't object. You have jurisdiction, but that wouldn't be the 
venue, and my question is whether jurisdiction includes the 
idea of venue in addition to just subject matter jurisdiction.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. What was the question?
    Mr. Scott. On your amendment it says jurisdiction over the 
offense being investigated, whether the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas I believe 
has the answer.
    Mr. Scott. Whether the term ``jurisdiction'' would include 
venue as well as jurisdiction, because if you are investigating 
an armed robbery at Fort Monroe in Virginia, you could actually 
try it in California if the defendant didn't object. You have 
subject matter jurisdiction, but I think the idea is that you 
are trying to find a judge in the venue where the offense is 
being investigated and whether the legislative intent of the 
word ``jurisdiction'' includes venue. And I will yield to the 
gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I will try to provide an 
answer to you. First of all, I am looking at the language under 
definitions C-1, court of competent jurisdiction, A, where it 
says any District Court in the United States, including the 
Magistrate Court or any United States Court of Appeals having 
jurisdiction over the offense being investigated. That is a 
narrowing of the definition of venue just to the jurisdiction 
of the offense, and so in other words venue is not as broad as 
I think you may think it is.
    Mr. Scott. Well, let me ask it specifically. If the offense 
is at Fort Monroe in Virginia, can a California judge issue a 
search warrant, because they would have jurisdiction but not 
venue?
    Mr. Smith. Right, if the gentleman would yield, I think in 
most cases the answer is no but it depends on where it is 
investigated. If it happens to be investigated in California, 
yes, but that is not likely. I think it is typically going to 
be the place where the offense occurred or close to it.
    Mr. Scott. Well, maybe if I just ask that someone look at 
that issue to make sure the words are--mean what they appear to 
mean.
    Mr. Smith. I assume the words mean what they say, but if 
not, we will take a look at it and discuss it between now and 
the floor.
    Mr. Scott. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
either you or the Ranking Member on the--or Mr. Berman or on 
the Berman amendment where you are talking about designation of 
foreign terrorist organizations. I am seeing this for the first 
time. If you are designated, do you ever have an opportunity to 
be heard, and how does that work?
    Mr. Berman. That is a very good question. My colleague from 
New York seems to be clear with the--no, he is just raising 
his. All right. He is gesturing. It is not a judicial or quasi-
judicial process. It is an executive branch function where you 
put the organization on the list, and then this is the law we 
passed in 1996 and a whole lot of things happen when you are on 
that list. The manager's amendment, that portion of it that 
involves this, right now the Secretary of State has the sole 
power to do it. This would give the Secretary of State the 
power under existing definitions. It doesn't change any of the 
definitions. It doesn't change any of the definitions, but it 
allows--it says the Attorney General has to concur, and if he 
refuses--and then gives the Attorney General to name options 
and gives the Secretary of State the obligation to concur, and 
if there is no concurrence it forces the decision to the White 
House and to the President.
    But I do have--I do have an answer now to--there is a 
process. Once the organization is placed on the list, not later 
than 30--an organization not later than 30 days after the 
publication of that designation, an organization designated as 
a foreign terrorist organization may seek judicial review of 
the designation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit. And the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Time of the gentleman has expired.
    Is the preference of the Committee to stay here until 2:00 
o'clock in the morning or not?
    This is a manager's amendment, which presumably was agreed 
to. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify the point 
of this amendment. As I understand it, I would like Mr. Berman 
to--just to tell me if I am understanding this correctly. As I 
understand it, the point of this amendment is to narrow the 
existing law. It doesn't change the method of designation at 
all, except to say that whereas the Secretary of State 
designates a foreign terrorist organization now under current 
law, he could only do it under future law if he also got the 
agreement of the Attorney General, the theory being that the 
Secretary of State may do it more on a political level, given 
foreign policy considerations. The Attorney General's 
concurrence hopefully will be based more on some legal 
considerations.
    So this doesn't change the process other than by saying 
that you need two people's concurrence, whereas under current 
law only one person can do it. So it in effect makes it a 
little harder to designate--I don't know about harder, but it 
makes it--it gives a little check on it, a little check that we 
don't have now.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes.
    Mr. Berman. That is one effect. The other effect, though, I 
have to tell you is part of why I introduced the amendment. In 
some cases the Secretary of State for all kinds of 
sophisticated diplomatic reasons will decide not to name an 
organization which meets the definition as a foreign terrorist 
organization, and your reasons are compelling or perhaps they 
are because the desk officer for the particular country where 
that organization is based says that will screw up some 
commercial deal that we are having with that country, and so I 
wanted the Attorney General to be empowered to name 
organizations, and then if the Secretary of State refuses to 
concur with that, let the President decide whether the--that 
organization--whether the diplomatic reasons not to name that 
organization are so compelling that the Attorney General's 
request should be denied. So it both narrows in one sense and 
broadens in another sense.
    Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time, I think it is a very good 
amendment, because essentially what it does is make it a little 
more based on legal criterion rather than on political or 
commercial criterion which may hold too much sway now. So I 
commend the gentleman and I support the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Georgia seek recognition?
    Mr. Barr. To strike the last word just for purposes of 
clarifying.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Barr. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the 
intent of that portion of your manager's amendment that relates 
to section 351 is intended to ensure conformity with other 
similar provisions regarding the obtaining of search warrants, 
and it is not the intent of the Chairman to broaden beyond the 
language in the draft bill the courts that could issue the 
search warrants?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, the 
answer to the question is yes.
    Mr. Barr. I think then, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, 
the only thing I would urge is when we come up with a final 
draft here to--I think grammatically that could be made 
absolutely clear, which is not the case in the current 
language, but I appreciate the gentleman's recognition to that 
fact. I think it just was--it is lacking a couple of commas.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Weiner, seek recognition?
    Mr. Weiner. For the purpose of just asking--to strike the 
last.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Weiner. I note in the Berman portion of the manager's 
amendment the reference to section 202, 8 U.S.C., is that 
notions and groups that will be targeted by this added 
enforcement ability, and I just want to clarify, because it was 
a question that came up when the President spoke to Congress. 
He listed many organizations, and he left out Hamas and 
Hezbollah. When he issued an executive order freezing assets, 
he listed organizations that would be frozen, left out Hamas 
and Hezbollah, two organizations, the only two I know of, that 
have actually engaged in terrorist activity since September 
11th, including yesterday. And I just want to make sure that my 
understanding is correct, that despite the President taking 
that position, this bill includes all of the organizations that 
were included in the immigration law as of 1996 that include 
Hamas and Hezbollah. Is that your understanding, Mr. Berman?
    Mr. Berman. This amendment doesn't affect any organizations 
that have been put on the list. Both of those organizations are 
on the list.
    Mr. Weiner. Then Mr. Chairman, it is your understanding 
that the entire bill refers to that same universe of 
organizations that were delineated in 1996?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If they are on the list, this bill 
applies to those that are on the list.
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 
amendment that--it is an easy amendment, and----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the manager's 
amendment, which is pending.
    Ms. Waters. Yes. I have an amendment to the manager's 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment 
to the manager's amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the manager's amendment to H.R. 
2975 offered by Ms. Waters. Insert in line 7 after the period 
the following: It shall be unlawful for any memorandum of 
understanding between law enforcement agencies to provide that 
there is no requirement to report any drug trafficking 
activities.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman and Members, this amendment is 
prompted based on information that I learned about memorandums 
of understanding between the Justice Department and the CIA as 
it related to their involvement with the Contras. During the 
time that our Administration was supporting the Contras in the 
Nicaragua, where there was a war going on between the Contras 
and the Sandinistas, it is well known now that our intelligence 
agencies turned a blind eye toward drug trafficking, and they 
had an actual memorandum of understanding that they did not 
have to report drug trafficking.
    The reason for that was the Contras were trafficking drugs 
as one way of paying for their war activities, but what we 
discovered during that conflict was both the Sandinistas and 
the Contras were trafficking in drugs, and everybody turned a 
blind eye.
    We are dealing now with Afghanistan, where we know the 
Taliban, for example, is dealing in poppies and trafficking in 
drugs. I also suspect that the opposition may also start to do 
that if they are not already doing it. And since you have an 
amendment in this amendment that would put some money in for 
the DEA agency supposedly to deal with training in antidrug 
information, I want to make sure that never again will our 
government have a memorandum of understanding that our CIA or 
the DEA or the DIA or anybody else does not have to report drug 
trafficking when they encounter it and when they experience it 
and when they see it.
    I would ask for an aye vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I recognize myself in opposition to 
the amendment. First of all, this is a question of oversight 
that this Committee should be doing. It should not be 
statutory.
    But secondly, I don't know if the gentlewoman from 
California heard about the speech that British Prime Minister 
Blair gave yesterday to the Labor Party Annual Conference 
somewhere in the United Kingdom. I watched part of it on CNN, 
and one of the things the Prime Minister Blair said is that 90 
percent of the heroin that is sold on the streets of Great 
Britain is furnished by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda 
organization, and the Brits who are buying heroin on the street 
are helping Osama bin Laden's terrorist activity.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Now what the gentlewoman's 
amendment says is that there can't be a memorandum of 
understanding between law enforcement agencies to deal with 
this question. And not only is the heroin that the----
    Ms. Waters. That is not true, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I have the floor. This is what the 
Prime Minister of Great Britain had to say to his party's 
annual conference. And he said--and I saw it on TV and others 
could have seen it on TV--that anybody who bought heroin in 
Great Britain had a good chance of helping finance what the bin 
Laden organization was doing. What the gentlewoman's amendment 
does is hamstring the ability of law enforcement to be able to 
enter into memorandums of understanding to deal with this 
issue.
    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield? Because he is 
misrepresenting what my amendment does.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, I will not yield. I could have 
got the amendment on a point of order on nongermaneness.
    I would urge the Members to vote against the amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, that is patently unfair. You have 
misrepresented what my amendment does.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, for 
what purpose do you----
    Mr. Conyers. To strike the requisite number----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, gentlelady from California and 
Members of the Committee, my comment, without going to the 
efficacy of the Waters' amendment is that a manager's amendment 
is purportedly agreed to by the Committee. And if we are to 
open it up to many very excellent proposals that could be 
offered, we have just voided the whole reason for having a 
manager's amendment.
    The reason I make this point now is that we currently have 
asked staffs to begin preparing a second manager's amendment to 
expedite the process which we will vent through to all of the 
Members that, where there is concurrence, we can move ahead 
more quickly. And that is the purpose.
    So my request, before I yield to the gentlelady, is that we 
begin by withdrawing this amendment; and if there is some 
appropriate other place in our procedure to deal with it, we 
ought to do it. But I would urge the Members not to assume that 
there is some reason to reopen the manager's amendment. Because 
I concede quickly that there are many other modifications that 
we could make, but the whole idea is to get this package 
through so we can get to other amendments.
    Ms. Waters. Will you give me some time?
    Mr. Conyers. So if the gentlelady--I thought she wanted me 
to yield. Well, then, I yield.
    Ms. Waters. Mr. Conyers, I could withdraw it, but I refuse 
to do it until it is clarified, until my amendment is defined 
and understood. There is no way of misunderstanding what this 
amendment does. This amendment simply says that you cannot have 
law enforcement agencies agreeing that they are not going to 
report drug trafficking. Now the Chairman misrepresented what 
this amendment does. I will not withdraw it----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. I will let the gentlelady finish her 
statement.
    Ms. Waters. I will not withdraw it as long as the Chairman 
is misrepresenting what it is. This is designed to do exactly 
what the Prime Minister and others were talking about. This 
business of going in and taking sides and allowing the side 
that you are supporting to deal in drugs and turning your head 
must stop. We have discovered that this is what was done with 
the Contras, and we should not allow it to be done under any 
circumstances.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentlelady for making clear the 
terms under which she would require a withdrawal, and I urge 
the Chairman to proffer the necessary statement that would 
allow us to withdraw this so that we could move forward.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield? So proffered.
    Mr. Conyers. With pleasure.
    Ms. Waters. I am sorry. I didn't hear you.
    Mr. Conyers. It was directed to the Chairman.
    Ms. Waters. Did he say something?
    Mr. Conyers. Not yet--he did----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I said, so proffered.
    Mr. Conyers.--in interpretation, he apologized profusely 
for his misunderstanding and total misinterpretation of this 
one-sentence amendment.
    Ms. Waters. I accept the stingy apology.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    The question is on the manager's amendment. Those in favor 
will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The manager's 
amendment is agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to title I? If not, title I is 
closed.
    Title II, labeled Aliens Engaging in Terrorist Activity, is 
now considered as read and open for amendment at any point 
pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement.
    Are there amendments to title II?
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment. I believe this is Hyde 104 relating to money 
laundering--110 relating to money laundering.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Hyde.
    At the----
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the reading be dispensed with.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hyde. Mr. Chairman, the practice of money laundering 
has long been used by drug dealers, rogue governments and other 
criminals to hide their ill-gotten assets and to finance their 
illegal activities. International terrorists like those who 
high-jacked four airliners and attacked the World Trade Center 
and the Pentagon on September 11 engaged in money laundering to 
finance their organizations and carry out their terrorist acts.
    Money laundering is prevalent in countries with weak or 
underdeveloped banking systems such as those in the Caribbean, 
Latin America, Asia and Africa. Mr. Ballenger, a Member of our 
House, initially brought these issues to light after his 
travels to Latin America and has worked diligently in finding 
ways to fight money laundering.
    This amendment is a cumulative effort of Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
Tom Lantos, the Ranking Member of the International Relations 
Committee, and myself. The purpose of this amendment is very 
simple. It is to provide consular officers of the United States 
with specific authority to deny a U.S. Visa to individuals who 
are known to be or suspected of engaging in money laundering. 
It is intended to make it more difficult for those who engage 
in money laundering to gain legal entrance into the United 
States and to gain access to U.S. Financial institutions. It is 
modeled after the authority of consular offices to deny entry 
to drug traffickers.
    The Secretary of State, after consultation with the 
Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
Director of Central Intelligence, will develop a money 
laundering watch list from which the consular office may check 
prior to issuing a visa.
    I respectfully request the Committee adopt----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hyde. I am happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe this amendment is very 
constructive and am prepared to accept it and urge the 
Committee to adopt it.
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    I also agree to the amendment being a worthy one. But I 
just wanted to note the gentleman from California and I spent 
the morning in a hearing of the Financial Services Committee on 
the whole subject of money laundering; and it was represented 
by Secretary of the Treasury O'Neil and then some law 
enforcement people, including from the Treasury and the FBI and 
Justice, that money laundering--I admit that the gentleman from 
Alabama was there and presided over the hearing--and it 
reminded me there is an important piece of this that hasn't yet 
really come forward.
    I gather we as the Judiciary Committee have the main part 
of the jurisdiction. The gentleman from Illinois has made a 
good step forward. But I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that--I 
gather the Administration is just in the process of sending up 
its bill; and I would just inquire, because the fact that that 
was left out kind of raised some questions, where are we? If 
the gentleman from Illinois would yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman from Illinois 
yield to me?
    Mr. Hyde. I yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This amendment is drafted 
specifically as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality 
Act so as to avoid a sequential referral to the Financial 
Services Committee. I believe there has to be a separate anti-
money laundering bill which I think most of us will support 
here, but that is not in the jurisdiction of our Committee but 
in the jurisdiction----
    Mr. Frank. If the gentleman from Illinois would yield 
again. What they tell me is some of the way the Administration 
is drafting it, we may have jurisdiction. So I would hope that 
maybe pretty soon we would sit with the people at Financial 
Services and work out a plan. They said they would talk about 
amending title XVIII.
    I thought, as the gentleman from Wisconsin did, that it 
wouldn't be the jurisdiction here. But apparently there was 
some sense from the Financial Services that it might come here.
    I would note that it should be something we should moving 
on quickly.
    Mr. Hyde. Sheila Jackson Lee, would you like to be 
recognized?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman--and two Mr. Chairmans 
sitting next to each other--frankly, I think the present state 
of immigration laws of which this particular amendment is 
amending doesn't specifically have language prohibiting a 
person from entering the country if they are laundering money. 
But it is clear that the financing of terrorism is a key 
concern, both in terms of the investigation and in terms of 
prohibiting further terrorism.
    I would only say that I want us to be very concerned about 
broadening the criteria for inadmissibility. But I believe that 
this particular prohibition in light of what we are trying to 
do is reasonable and it may provide an incentive. The word may 
go out, if you are money laundering, don't come here, which 
will be helpful to us. So I would support this amendment.
    I know that you and Mr. Lantos have worked on it, and I 
support it. My only caveat is that we are cautioned for 
broadening the basis of inadmissibility as it may impact 
immigrants who are coming here on nothing but legal terms.
    I yield to the gentlelady from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recognize the gentlewoman for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think clearly, under the current act, the 
consular officer or the Attorney General has the ability to 
exclude individuals who engage in money laundering activities 
anyhow. So I don't mind being duplicative in this amendment. I 
plan to vote for it.
    But what I am particularly concerned about and the reason 
why I wanted to mention this is the state of the technology to 
actually implement this plan, which is a good one, along with 
some of the other things we are doing, is simply not there in 
many of the consular offices as well as the immigration 
service. I am, therefore, particularly glad that this amendment 
is before us and highlighting once again the need to put in 
technology tools to make sure that what we pass actually works.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose is Mr. Bachus 
seeking recognition?
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bachus. Thank you. I do think--one of the things that 
we in our money laundering hearings that we have had in 
Financial Services is that there needs to be better 
coordination between the agencies and between our immigration 
agencies and our law enforcement agencies. I think this is 
consistent with what we have seen is necessary. I do. I think 
maybe the Financial Services Committee will look at it. But I 
do not believe--I think they will obviously look at it because 
it does deal with some sections that they also exercise 
jurisdiction over, but I can't speak for them. But I would 
think that it is consistent with what we are doing.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back?
    Question is--gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. I ask whether or not someone whose name is put 
on this list ever has an opportunity to be heard to suggest 
that the one who is money laundering is actually somebody with 
the same name and it is not them. Do they have an opportunity 
to be heard to get off the list?
    Mr. Hyde. Yes. The answer is yes. If you are wrongfully 
included on any list, I should think that you could go to where 
the list originates and plead your case, because--and if they 
kept you on, you would have a cause for litigation. So I think 
these are practically worked out.
    There is judicial review, I am advised, of a removal order. 
So there is judicial review.
    Mr. Frank. Gentleman would yield to me?
    Mr. Scott. Gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. I can support this amendment. But part of the 
problem is on removal there would be judicial review. But if we 
are talking about denial of a visa, American consuls who are 
being asked to grant a visa are, as far as I know, the only 
officials of the American government who make an absolutely and 
completely totally unreviewable decision. A consul's decision 
to say no to a visa to someone who is not an American, to 
someone who is overseas--the ambassador cannot technically and 
legally overrule them. Those of us who have intervened have 
been told that, and it is simply not paper. So in removal, it 
is true.
    As I said, I still support the amendment, but it is one 
thing I hope this Committee will address. I tried to raise it 
before. But we ought to be clear. The decision of an American 
consular officer to deny a visa is absolutely unreviewable by 
any other official or judicial or executive branch official.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Question is on the Hyde amendment. 
Those in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Further amendments to title II?
    Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Nadler. The amendment offered by Nadler and Jackson 
Lee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Which amendment specifically?
    Mr. Nadler. Page 52, strike line 15.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler and Ms. Jackson 
Lee to H.R. 2975.
    On page 52, strike line 15 and all that----
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to waive 
the reading of the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes subject to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's reservation.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment, which I am offering along with the 
gentlewoman from Texas, the gentleman from California and the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is very simple. As 
currently drafted the bill would allow the government to 
communicate with a foreign government with respect--with the 
country of origin of an applicant for asylum--political asylum 
in this country for the purpose of obtaining information about 
whether the asylum applicant perhaps is really a terrorist or 
terrorist agent. And it is perfectly fine.
    Unfortunately, the provision has been drafted so broadly 
that legitimate applicants for political asylum who are in fact 
fleeing persecution in a foreign country could be rewarded for 
their yearning to be free in the United States by having Uncle 
Sam in effect inform on them to the secret police of the 
foreign country, possibly resulting in their families back home 
getting murdered by the foreign government secret police.
    This power was not sought by the Department of Justice. It 
wasn't even in the Attorney General's bill. Giving it to the 
government without drafting it properly so that we don't 
endanger the lives of the families of applicants for political 
asylum would be an outrageous abuse of our laws and of our 
belief that people are entitled to seek freedom for themselves 
and their families on our shores.
    How many times have political dissidents been punished by 
totalitarian regimes by being separated for life from their 
families or by finding out that a parent is in the gulag or 
perhaps murdered? We do not want to place our government on the 
side of these terrible practices by telling a murderous foreign 
government whom to murder.
    I don't think that is the intent of this bill. But, 
unfortunately, it could be the effect of this provision if it 
is not amended.
    What this amendment proposes is straightforward. The 
amendment would limit the information that our government could 
give to a foreign government while seeking information from 
that government so as to bar the foreign government from 
figuring out which of its citizens is seeking asylum in the 
United States. The U.S. Government is--would be perfectly free 
to seek and obtain information from foreign governments to 
properly identify potential terrorist threats, but it must not, 
in so doing, reveal information that would enable that foreign 
government to figure out which of its citizens are subject to 
seeking political asylum here. We must not reveal, in effect, 
to the secret police of a foreign government who is defecting--
who is defecting from that tyranny and seeking political asylum 
here.
    This amendment would leave the government free to obtain 
whatever information it needed to determine the bona fides of 
the asylum application, to decide whether there is a genuine 
freedom seeker or perhaps a terrorist or foreign agent. But, in 
so doing, the amendment would protect the genuine, sincere 
asylum seeker from being identified to the secret police or 
some nasty foreign government and him--not him, but his family 
left behind suffering the consequences. I would hope--it is 
simply protection that I would hope everyone would agree to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Gekas. We do not.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Gekas. I do. I thank the Chair.
    We oppose the amendment and ask the Members to vote no. The 
current language in the bill effectively removes a bar on the 
disclosure of information that the alien is a terrorist. In 
other words, what this language does in the bill, which now the 
gentleman from New York wants to change, is to allow our 
government to disclose that the alien is or is a potential 
terrorist. The gentleman's amendment puts back the bar and 
prevents our government from disclosing that the alien is a 
terrorist. We oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. Yeah.
    Mr. Nadler. I don't think you are reading the amendment 
correctly. The amendment says, information contained in or 
pertaining to an asylum application, records pertaining to any 
credible feared determination conducted pursuant to section so 
and so and records pertaining to any reasonable feared 
determination are confidential and shall not be disclosed 
without the written consent of the applicant. But section 2 of 
the amendment says, the requirement of confidentiality set 
forth in paragraph 1 does not prohibit the Attorney General 
from requesting or receiving information from other governments 
as parts of an investigation to determine whether an alien is 
described in section 2, et cetera, of this act provided the 
Attorney General does not disclose to an unauthorized person, 
A, the fact that the alien is an applicant for asylum or, B, 
information, including but not limited to specific facts 
sufficient to give rise to an inference that the applicant has 
applied for asylum or similar relief.
    In other words, it allows the government to get whatever 
information it requires. It simply says you cannot tell a 
foreign government information that would lead the foreign 
government to conclude that so and so is requesting political 
asylum in the United States.
    I don't know to whom you are talking about disclosing. If 
our government concludes that an applicant for asylum is a 
terrorist, it simply excludes him. We don't want to disclose 
this to the foreign government, which presumably knows it. What 
we don't want to disclose to the foreign government is who is 
seeking asylum. If the foreign government is sending a 
terrorist here, they know it. All that is necessary for our 
government to do is to determine whether he is a terrorist or 
not.
    The amendment specifically says they can get whatever 
information they need to make that determination. If our 
government determines that an asylum applicant is a terrorist, 
foreign agent or whatever, they simply say, no, you can't come 
into this country.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Gekas. I yield to the lady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will wait to strike the last word.
    Mr. Gekas. Well, let the lady proceed, and I will set my 
own time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You already have your time.
    Mr. Gekas. I will ask somebody to yield time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much.
    I would like to ask my colleagues to consider this 
amendment and determine that we are not putting a bar or block 
in the midst of information that may be exchanged on the 
grounds that an individual is a terrorist. The issue of this 
particular amendment is to avoid the broadness of interfering 
or putting in jeopardy an innocent asylum seeker.
    I think the interesting point that was made is that the 
Attorney General himself did not ask for this information or 
did not ask for this provision. We do not at this point know 
under what conditions a number of the perpetrators, the 19 
perpetrators, came into this country. So we don't have a basis 
as to whether or not you could attribute that they were here on 
the seeking of asylum. Therefore, we are leaping to any 
conclusions that we would be helping to thwart terrorism by 
providing this broad depth of giving information, therefore 
jeopardizing lives not only of the seeker but of the family 
members as well.
    I think the exception in the section allows for exchange of 
information if information is either found out or if someone is 
so designated as a terrorist, section 2 on page 53. What we are 
simply trying to do is to limit the transfer of information 
that would be detrimental to an innocent asylum seeker.
    I again emphasize to my colleagues that the immigration 
section is a very delicate section because it draws a lot of 
attention. Let us immediately close our doors, let us 
immediately attribute terrorism to all of those who are under 
the immigration laws, and I suggest that that should not be the 
case. Immigration does not equate to terrorism, and the only 
thing we are trying to do is to eliminate the unwiseness of 
sharing this information that would be detrimental to innocent 
individuals warranting asylum and warranting the protection of 
this country. I would ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment offered by Mr. Nadler and several others of my 
colleagues and myself.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, seek recognition?
    Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I stand on the first statement that I made, in effect that 
this amendment calls for the prohibition of disclosure by the 
Attorney General to any unauthorized person in the language of 
the amendment itself, the fact that the alien is an applicant 
for asylum. That goes against--directly against the language in 
the bill which does authorize the government in its discretion 
to disclose the fact that the alien is an applicant for asylum. 
And from what we have gleaned in determining this language, it 
does not do harm to the relatives or the other rationale that 
the gentleman gave for his amendment. So I ask----
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 
What would be the purpose of the provision in the bill to 
disclose to a foreign government that an individual had applied 
for an asylum? In your original statement, you mention 
terrorism. I don't see where there is any nexus at all between 
the information that an individual has applied for asylum and 
terrorism. Explain that, if you would.
    Mr. Goodlatte. I yield further to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. This would permit the government or our side 
to--knowing this is a potential terrorist or for other reasons 
that it would not be appropriate to grant asylum to disclose 
that information.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. Let us do a triple yield.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    It could be that the government would want the applicant's 
family bumped off. That is the only reason I can think of.
    Mr. Berman. Would you yield further?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. This has no constraint whatsoever on the 
ability of our government to get information about the asylum 
seeker. The Nadler amendment makes no constraint. It just says, 
don't--when you are going, don't tell unauthorized people he is 
seeking asylum. Try and get information. When they say why do 
you want the information, say maybe because we want to put him 
on the watch list. Because we want to indict him. Because we 
are concerned. We heard that he might be a terrorist, and we 
want to know about it. Don't tell that person--don't tell the 
unauthorized person, meaning the foreign government, that this 
person who is fleeing from that government is seeking asylum 
because then that government in certain situations might well 
go to family or close friends of that person who are in the 
country and do harm to them.
    That is all he says, is don't tell him that he is seeking 
asylum. It doesn't constrain what we can get. It only limits 
quite narrowly what we can tell the foreign government.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gekas. Double yield.
    Mr. Nadler. I just don't understand one thing. The 
government--yes, Mr. Gekas is correct. The amendment would say 
that the government can't disclose the information that so and 
so is seeking political asylum. My question is, who has 
business to know that? The government knows it is seeking 
political asylum. The government has to decide whether to grant 
it. The government has to find out if his political asylum 
claim is valid, if he is a terrorist or narcotics seller or 
whatever. It has to gather information. It doesn't have to give 
anybody information.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Reclaim my time to give the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania an opportunity to respond.
    Mr. Gekas. I am confused by the assertions that are being 
made here. The main language in our bill prohibits the 
granting--the information from--bars the asking of this 
information or giving this information.
    Excuse me. Here we go.
    Your amendment, does it not say that the Attorney General 
does not--shall not disclose to any unauthorized person the 
fact that an alien is an applicant for asylum?
    Mr. Nadler. Yes. But it also says he can ask anybody for 
information he needs to determine if the guy is a terrorist or 
should get asylum or anything else.
    Mr. Gekas. Why is it important to you then to force the 
Attorney General not to disclose the fact that the alien is an 
applicant for asylum?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia, who has been very blissfully silent, to the 
appreciation of everybody, has expired.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. I would implore my friend from Pennsylvania to 
look at this. I don't think he has a problem with this 
amendment.
    Let me put it this way. We have a policy part in this 
government known as ``don't ask, don't tell'', which I don't 
like. What the gentleman from New York is now proposing is a 
different policy. It is, ``ask, don't tell''.
    We have an asylum process. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
says, well, you have got to be able to tell the person deciding 
on the asylum whether he is a terrorist or not. That is not 
affected by the amendment.
    It is, after all, the American government--we are talking 
about a potential asylee who is in America or somewhere where 
he has access to the American government. All this amendment 
says is that the American government may ask of that host 
government or any other government in the world, do you know 
anything bad about this person? Do you know anything that I 
should know about him? All the amendment says in that process, 
do not disclose to other people, presumably the host government 
where the person is fleeing, that he is trying to get asylum 
here.
    No one who is empowered to make the decision on whether or 
not the person is eligible for asylum is denied any of the 
necessary information by this amendment. This amendment doesn't 
say that the Justice Department can't talk to Treasury, et 
cetera, et cetera. The decisionmaker about whether or not the 
individual gets asylum in the U.S. Is not in any way 
constrained from information here.
    All this amendment says is--I realize it is worded in a 
complex way, but all it says is, get whatever information you 
need about this individual from any source anywhere, but please 
don't--don't give away the fact that he or she is an applicant 
for asylum. Because in case the person isn't a terrorist and we 
do grant them asylum, you may not want to tip that government 
off.
    It does not prevent the United States government 
decisionmakers from getting one iota of the information they 
need to turn down the asylum. All it says is, in the process of 
gathering information from foreign governments from anybody you 
want to, go ahead and find out if this person should be turned 
down and make the decision. Just don't tell the government that 
might have an animus against that person where he still might 
have family that he has applied for asylum.
    Mr. Gekas. Doesn't it come down to a policy decision as to 
whether we owe the foreign government the----
    Mr. Frank. That is the policy decision. And here is the 
question----
    Mr. Gekas. It is inherent in the main act.
    Mr. Frank. First of all, be very clear, this does not 
affect the information we get to decide whether or not the 
person is a terrorist. So the gentleman says, do we owe it to 
the government? Well, it depends on which government. Do we owe 
the government of Iraq anything or the government of Iran?
    Mr. Gekas. That is what the Attorney General has to decide.
    Mr. Frank. What we are saying is, as a matter of policy, if 
someone is applying for asylum, we do not think you should give 
that away. If in fact the person turns out to be eligible for 
asylum--after all, this comes at an early point before we 
know--and the gentleman believes and we all have worked--if 
someone applies for the asylum procedure, they ask, as they are 
entitled to under this amendment, whether or not there is 
anything bad. Nothing bad comes forward, and we grant the 
person asylum.
    Wouldn't it have been a good idea to have told his host 
government in advance that he was applying for the asylum? If 
he is turned down for asylum, then there is no problem. But the 
question is, pending the application, pending the decision, 
should we put that person or people close to him or her at risk 
by disclosing to the host government the individual has applied 
for asylum?
    I would yield.
    Mr. Gekas. I am bound a little bit by the thrust of the 
Administration's offer here on the proposed bill that the 
Attorney General should have----
    Mr. Frank. Let me say that I think binding yourself to 
somebody else's thrust is not always a good idea. I mean, the 
point is, I understand the Administration asked that----
    Mr. Gekas. They didn't ask for it.
    Mr. Frank. The point is this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, and he has our undivided attention.
    Mr. Frank. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would say--and 
we are working with the Administration, but it is not a good 
idea to say that until the Administration signs off on 
something we can't accept it. My guess is I don't think they 
anticipated this. They were, I think, interested in making sure 
they got all the information they needed. I don't believe that 
this Administration feels that it is important for them to be 
able to tell a host government from which someone is applying 
for asylum that that person is applying for asylum.
    I yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. A number of years ago----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman--and I will be very brief. To me, 
the biggest problem with this amendment--and I am looking at 
the words under section (E)(2) that provide the Attorney 
General does not disclose to any unauthorized person that the 
alien is an applicant for asylum. The problem here is there are 
going to be many foreign countries who, unless you tell them 
that the individual has applied for asylum, are simply not 
going to be willing to give us the information the Attorney 
General needs as to whether the individual who has applied is a 
terrorist or has terrorist connections or not.
    The reason for that is that many foreign countries have 
very strict privacy codes, and they would be prohibited from 
giving us that information. So the whole rationale is to allow 
the foreign countries to have us a reason to give us the 
information that we need, and that is a major flaw in this 
amendment.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
    There are two major points here--probably several major 
points. First of all, Barney had ask and tell. This is fishers 
of men and women. This is throwing a vast net to get every 
single person that is applying for asylum. And so the--and that 
is what the bill does as presently written.
    At the same time, in contrast, where we are trying to go, 
which is to give law enforcement additional tools, it gives the 
Attorney General no enhanced investigatory tools. The Attorney 
General can get all of the information that he or she desires 
in the present--without this particular expansion. But what it 
does do is the sacredness that we hold to asylum seekers in 
general, which is that they are coming here out of a--both 
impression and reality of oppression and the need for safety, 
we are now throwing this vast net to say that you have the 
option of doing this for every single asylum seeker. We don't 
even have a criteria.
    What we are suggesting is that that is too broad, and you 
do nothing to enhance the investigation that we are attempting 
to do which is to find terrorists and bring them to justice. 
Find terrorists and bring them to justice. So I am not sure, 
Mr. Gekas, and I would be willing to yield, what we get out of 
this particular amendment. Who is to say that any foreign 
country is going to want to give you information for someone 
who is seeking asylum or is going to be advantaged to you in 
your investigation?
    What we are trying to do here, as I understand it, is give 
tools to be able to weed out terrorists and to prevent 
terrorists' acts. I cannot see where this might do so in 
jeopardizing those innocent individuals, vast numbers of 
individuals and their families who may be seeking asylum.
    My time----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Gekas. All I am trying to do here is to give the 
benefit of the doubt to the Attorney General where this Nadler 
amendment prevents him from disclosing that the alien is an 
applicant for asylum. I am giving the Attorney General the 
benefit of the doubt to make that judgment in his discretion. 
That is what I am upholding here, and that is why I asked the 
Members to vote no on this amendment.
    Mr. Scott. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, certain things 
ought to be protected. In the 1960's, Simas Kudirka, a 
Lithuanian seaman, defected from the Soviet Union in the port 
of New York or Boston; and because of rather shameful actions 
by our government, he was handed back to the Soviet Union. And 
I think he died in the gulag, as a result of which a future 
Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, said we would never do 
that again.
    What this amendment attempts to do is very analogous to 
that situation. You cannot always trust every future Attorney 
General or Deputy Attorney General or consul to make the right 
decision. What this says is, get whatever information you need 
to make the decisions with respect to political asylum, but 
don't tell the Soviet Union, don't tell the Ayatollahs who from 
their country is seeking to defect to the United States so they 
can arrange the murder or torture of his relatives. That 
doesn't make sense.
    We have--the United States Government has to make the 
decision, is this a real, sincere, bona fide applicant for 
asylum to whom we will grant asylum or is this someone we don't 
trust, to whom we won't grant asylum? If we make that decision, 
we will go back. But we shouldn't tell.
    This amendment inhibiting in any way the ability of the 
Secretary of State or whoever to get whatever information he 
needs, all we are saying is you can't tell the secret police of 
that foreign government that so and so is applying for 
political asylum, just as we should not have--not only return, 
we should never have informed the Soviet Union who was applying 
for a political asylum so that their relatives went to the 
gulag.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gekas. The only question I ask, are there no 
circumstances under which the Attorney General should give the 
information that you would bar?
    Mr. Nadler. The problem is this. No, there aren't; and I 
will tell you why. If someone is seeking to move to the United 
States from England and we want to ask England if this guy is a 
terrorist, he is not going to be applying for political asylum. 
He is going to be applying for regular immigration.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Mr. Chairman, where did 205(B) come from? I 
mean, it hasn't been in any earlier drafts. I don't know if 
anybody has asked that question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman from Alabama yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I don't know if this was something the 
Administration requested.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, the 
Administration did not request 205(B).
    Mr. Bachus. What I am suggesting, we can take care of the 
whole problem by striking 205(B).
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Nadler 
amendment. Before----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs the gentleman from 
Alabama.
    Mr. Bachus. I will yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Your question, is what we were trying to 
answer? And, as I said, I think our point is here we want to 
give the kind of investigatory needs that the Attorney General 
has. But let me refer you to 8 CFR 208.6. The Attorney General 
has those powers if he or she needs them--emergency powers and 
that can be utilized. So my colleagues, without them asking for 
it----
    Mr. Nadler. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Mr. Bachus. I am just going to suggest striking 205(B). 
Anybody opposed to striking 205(B)?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman want to offer 
that as an amendment to this amendment?
    Mr. Bachus. I offer that as an amendment to this amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would accept it as----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment to 
the amendment is agreed to. So now the amendment is striking 
section 205(B). The question is on the Nadler amendment as 
modified by the Bachus modification. Those in favor will 
signify by saying aye. Those opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment as modified is agreed to.
    Further amendments to title II? The Chair, on behalf of 
himself and Mr. Conyers, now offers a manager's amendment; and 
the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Manager's amendment to H.R. 2975.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendments follow:]
    

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan to discuss what is in the manager's 
amendment.
    Mr. Conyers. Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I want 
to thank the Chairman, both our staffs and you for considering 
seven additional proposals that will shorten our work for this 
evening considerably.
    The first consideration in the second manager's amendment 
has been a provision worked out between ourselves and the 
Department of Justice to craft an amendment to the bill's 
extra-territoriality provision to ensure that it contains 
safeguards passed by this Committee last year. So we continue 
these provisions into the present legislation.
    Second is the amendment that deals with survivor benefits 
for public safety officers, which is increased from $100,000 
per family to $250,000 per family is included.
    Third, the Keller amendment, which would study the 
feasibility of sharing law enforcement information about 
terrorists with airlines, is included therein.
    Fourth, the gentleman from Georgia Mr. Barr's amendment 
limits decisionmaking to high-ranking Department of Justice 
officials for the purpose of ensuring public accountability.
    Number five, another Barr amendment, which is entitled 
Public Safety Officers Quality Assurance Provision, which 
enhances the ability of private security companies to conduct 
background checks on prospective employees, this has already 
passed the Committee and the House unanimously in previous 
Congresses.
    Six, the Cannon of Utah provision entitled Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism, which would enhance the ability of 
victims of terrorism to collect money from states that sponsor 
terrorism. This provision also passed the Committee and the 
House unanimously last year.
    Finally, the Nadler-Jackson Lee amendment on indefinite 
detention, which would require the Attorney General to 
demonstrate every 6 months that a person being detained after 
removal proceedings are completed is being detained to protect 
the national security of the United States or the safety of our 
communities.
    This, ladies and gentlemen, contains the essential seven 
provisions in the second manager's amendment; and I implore 
your considered support.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time, let me say that 
is as a result of a bipartisan effort that has been worked out 
by the staffs on both sides. One of the purposes of this is to 
shorten the time that we are all here, and I would urge the 
Members to speedily adopt this amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Cannon, on 
his amendment involving terrorist judgments, is that similar to 
the bill we had allowing victims to sue foreign governments in 
the United States and get a judgment last year?
    Mr. Cannon. I think what the gentleman is referring to is 
the bill we passed out of this Committee last year, and I 
believe this is virtually identical to that bill.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, to save time, I would just announce that if a 
separate vote were taken, I would oppose this particular 
amendment. And yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The question is on the----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seeks recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. To make an inquiry as well.
    First of all, to Mr. Cannon, I believe this is an 
initiative that is impacting some constituents in my district. 
This will allow that if there is an action that you have 
against or a judgment that you may have received in a foreign 
country, you get to enforce it here or a foreign country?
    Mr. Cannon. This bill allows you to enforce it here against 
assets that are frozen by the United States.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Against assets that----
    Mr. Cannon. Have been frozen by the United States.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You have access as a United States citizen 
for an injury caused by a foreign government in a foreign land? 
You have access to assets here in the United States?
    Mr. Cannon. That are assets frozen of the terrorist state 
which are not currently available for execution.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And so if you have been injured by that 
terrorist state and have a judgment or a proceeding in our 
courts, you have access to those assets?
    Mr. Cannon. That is correct.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in 
                    Congress From the State of Utah
    Mr. Chairman,
    Let me first thank you and the ranking member for all your hard 
work on the legislation before us. The Sensenbrenner-Conyers ``PATRIOT 
Act'' is the product of much bi-partisan discussion and compromise over 
the last two weeks, and I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor.
    However, one important change in the law to fight terrorism and 
compensate its victims was not included.
    I am offering an amendment today to allow access to the frozen 
assets of terrorist sponsor states for American victims of 
international terrorism who obtain judgments against those terrorist 
sponsor states.
    This Committee and Congress have passed virtually identical 
legislation three times that would allow Americans who are victims of 
terrorist acts to sue the state-sponsors of terrorism for compensation 
from their frozen assets. Most recently in the 106th Congress we passed 
this legislation, then known as H.R. 3485 by Rep. McCollum, on voice 
vote in June of 2000. The legislation passed the House floor on 
suspension of the rules in July, 2000. I would be happy to provide a 
more lengthy legislative history of this provision to any Members who 
are interested.
    Congress has repeatedly stated its intent that victims of terrorist 
activities should be compensated from the blocked assets of terrorist 
sponsoring states. However, despite that intent, a few lower-level 
bureaucrats at the State Department have refused to release these funds 
to victims' families even after they have been awarded compensation.
    Under current law, Americans who have been victimized by state-
subsidized terrorism and are eligible to enforce court judgments 
against the assets of a terrorist state have had to essentially hire 
lobbyists and write special legislation to receive their awarded funds.
    Some victims have gotten compensated. Many have not.
    That is bad policy. American victims deserve better.
    Now we are faced with the specter of thousands of family members 
whose loved ones died in the September 11th attacks being unable to get 
just compensation. Congress must act again to fix this situation 
permanently.
Under My Amendment:
    (1) LAmerican victims of state-sponsored international terrorism 
will all have equal access to the courts and to blocked assets. A small 
but important token of justice. Nobody will be entitled to mandatory 
payments--the President's discretion is preserved. On an asset by asset 
basis the President can continue to hold certain assets from judgment 
if necessary for national security or diplomatic purposes.

    (2) LWe impose immediate financial costs on states that sponsor 
terrorism. Freezing assets for 20 years and giving them back to 
terrorist states does not impose such costs. At present, terrorism is a 
cheap way to pursue war against Americans. Unless the US finds ways to 
make it more costly, terrorists (and states which sponsor terrorism) 
have no economic incentive to stop. By imposing a direct and immediate 
cost, this amendment represents one effective financial tool against 
terrorists and also helps their victims.

    (3) LTerrorist sponsor states will no longer be able to use their 
diplomatic and intelligence agencies and state owned enterprises to 
support terrorists with financial impunity. Currently, terrorism 
sponsoring states use their wholly owned and controlled agencies and 
instrumentalities to raise, launder and distribute funds to terrorist 
cells, sometimes even within the US! Ironically, these agencies and 
instrumentalities can claim ``foreign sovereign immunity'' against 
victims and US courts because of their relationship with the terrorist 
sponsoring states. By exposing these agencies and instrumentalities to 
liability, the US can further increase the cost of sponsoring terrorism 
and go after the sources of funding for these organizations and cells.

    Let me say in closing, the United States will most certainly make 
the terrorists responsible for the attacks of September 11th pay for 
their acts.
    By passing our amendment, we will also make states that sponsor 
terrorists pay a financial price for their actions--and that price will 
be paid to their victims.
    I yield back my time.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much. And let me 
finally conclude by thanking the bipartisan effort for helping 
us to eliminate the indefinite suspension, which was something 
that none of us would want to support.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the second 
manager's amendment. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. 
Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Further amendments to title II? The gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, although this is hard work for 
us all, I think we have achieved a lot, not only today but in 
the last week. And I want to thank not only Mr. Conyers but 
yourself for the leadership that you have shown in putting a 
team together to work through these very difficult issues.
    I also wanted to take a moment to thank the staffs, both 
the majority and the minority staff, as well as the Justice 
Department and White House and others. I think they have worked 
so hard and really done a good job, and I just wanted to take a 
chance to thank them and appreciate them.
    This bill does make some changes that we are prepared to 
make. I am a cosponsor of the bill. And part of the fail-safe, 
if you will, is that we have put sunset provisions in title I. 
Now that doesn't mean that we are going to let these provisions 
go away, but it is going to force the Congress to review how it 
is worked and to see if there are problems and to fix the 
problems if we discover them. I think all of us feel good about 
that mechanism to make us really look at this if something 
turns out in a way that is unanticipated. We don't need a 
sunset clause in order to do that, but I think it is probably 
useful to make us do it. And, therefore, this amendment would 
put the same sunset clause on title II as was in place in title 
I with the exception of 206, which is the protection of the 
northern border provisions that obviously doesn't need the same 
kind of review.
    I hope we can adopt this so it will help us with the 
discipline we will need to review this section of the act along 
with the others, although, as I discussed with some Members, we 
don't have to have this adopted in order to review this in 2 
years time.
    I will not proceed further. I think it is a simple 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will recognize himself in 
opposition to the amendment.
    I believe that there is an essential difference between the 
sunset that is contained in title I, which largely involves 
electronic surveillance and all that we have talked about 
during our debate on title I, and the changes in title II 
relative to the immigration status of persons who are 
affiliated with terrorist organizations.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The sunset title I allows the 
Congress and this Committee and our counterpart in the other 
body specifically to review whether Federal agencies have 
complied with the law and whether they have had appropriate 
disciplinary action for rogue agents that may have strayed from 
the guarantees contained in the Constitution, in the laws; and 
I think that it is important that there be a review outside the 
Justice Department on whether the Justice Department has 
fulfilled the mandates under the law.
    With aliens who are allegedly or are suspected to be 
affiliated with terrorist organizations, there really isn't a 
review that we can do on that, and they aren't going to change 
their inclination and what type of terroristic acts they plan 
on committing in the United States at the stroke of 12:00 on 
December 31th in the year 2003. So I believe that there is 
justification for having these changes made permanent, because 
as the President has said, we are in this for the long haul.
    Terrorism is not going to go away. We are not dealing with 
the behavior, or alleged misbehavior, of employees and agents 
at the Federal Government. Here, we are dealing with who is 
admissible to the country, who can stay in the country, and if 
they are affiliated with terrorist organizations. I don't think 
we want them here, and we should not allow the clock to run out 
on that.
    So I would urge the Members of the Committee to reject this 
amendment, even though it is very well intentioned, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The question is on the Lofgren amendment. Those in favor 
will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The Lofgren 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments?
    The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    A point of order is reserved by the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Smith.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are two--Weiner 01.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Weiner 01, and the clerks will 
distribute Weiner 01.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Weiner. At 
the end of subtitle A of title----
    Mr. Weiner. I ask that it be considered as read, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Clerk.--insert the following and amend the----
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered. And 
the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, subject to the 
reservation of the gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, we had a real problem in this country with 
the student exchange visitor system that we have. Between 1999 
and 2000, the State Department issued more than 3,300--almost 
3,400 student visas from countries that are on the U.S. 
terrorism watch list, and we have seen the results of the fact 
that we have no way of knowing where many of those--where many 
of those students are, what movement they have had within or 
without the country, any change of academic status that they 
might have had, any disciplinary action that might have been 
against them, any crimes that they might have committed while 
here in the United States.
    In 1996, this Congress tried to get a handle on this by 
creating a system, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information 
System, to track this information. It has been implemented at a 
woefully slow rate of speed; and unfortunately, on September 
11th, we saw that the gaps in the system exist. Hani Hanjour, 
believed to be one of the hijackers on the flight that hit the 
Pentagon, was in the country on a student visa that allowed him 
to study English at Holy Names College in Oakland, California.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Weiner. Certainly I will, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This amendment is a winner, and I 
would urge the Committee to adopt it and would urge the 
gentleman from Texas to withdraw his reservation. If he makes a 
point of order, it will be overruled.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I just withdrew my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is withdrawn.
    Mr. Weiner. Well, Weiner can spot a winner, so he yields 
back the balance of his time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
    Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. On the amendment that--for Mr. Weiner, we--as 
we all know, we have a provision in this, and Mr. Weiner has 
referenced, in current law that has not been implemented. It 
has gotten extensions.
    There is no way we would ever extend it again, but I also 
think we need to draw the attention of the appropriators of 
this issue, because part of the problem on this implementation 
is that there hasn't been financing to implement it. And I am 
not opposed to fee-driven implementation, but I have no idea 
whether that is actually adequate to implement it.
    So I just wanted to raise that issue and to see whether we 
couldn't get some action from the Appropriations--to the 
appropriator for this purpose, which is enormously important. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose----
    Mr. Frank. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, we work long hours and sometimes 
our attention is bad, and I apologize, but I would like to go 
back to the amendment of the gentleman from New York because I 
have read it and I do have some questions about it.
    It says, ``In the case of an alien who is a national of a 
country, the government of which'' . . . ``has repeatedly 
provided support for acts of international terrorism, the 
Attorney General may impose on, and collect from, the alien a 
fee greater than imposed other aliens.''.
    I apologize if we raised this before, but what if--if there 
is no nexus between the alien, the student and the policies of 
the government, are we impugning every student from a 
particular country?
    So I would yield to the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Weiner. I think what my amendment seeks to acknowledge 
is that there is heightened attention paid to students that 
come here from places like Iran, whether we think that is a 
good thing or bad thing--and I think it is a good thing--that 
added attention and added reporting requirements that might be 
necessary and added enforcement activities warrant having 
higher fees coming from the----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Weiner. I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I note that the gentleman from New 
York's amendment is permissive. It says the Attorney General 
may impose a higher fee. That means that if you have a student 
from Afghanistan who is anti-Taliban, the Attorney General can 
impose a lower fee, but if you have a pro-Taliban student, the 
Attorney General can sock it to him.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I must say I think I probably 
would have voted against this if I hadn't not been paying 
attention, which is partly my fault--mostly my fault; but I 
would hope that at least we would make a record of what the 
Chairman had said and that it would be in the report that there 
is no automatic imputation of the sins of the government to the 
student and that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will further yield?
    Mr. Frank. Let me finish.
    --in that absence, some showing that there was some 
predisposition that we wouldn't be doing that.
    Now I would yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The staff is directed to have the 
report so state, should this amendment be adopted.
    Mr. Frank. I thought it was already adopted.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    Mr. Weiner. You really weren't paying attention, were you, 
Barney?
    Mr. Frank. I thought that you had adopted it. Well, then, I 
take most of what I said back that was procedural, nothing 
substantive, and even--I would speak against it, the problem of 
penalizing the student, that this is discretionary.
    It may well be, but when we are talking about students who 
are coming from governments that are pretty unattractive 
governments and requiring the student to speak out against it, 
it could be a problem.
    I understand, looking at visas and looking at why people 
come here, but literally what this does is it gives discretion 
to the Attorney General to visit the sins of the government on 
the students.
    I know we say it may cost a little more money, but 
obviously we are not doing this because of the fiscal impact, 
and I think it has an unfortunate effect. Many of these 
students are being twice victimized. They are being victimized 
by living in the country----
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield? In fact, I would say 
to the gentleman that it was partially a fiscal analysis on 
figuring out a way to pay for the fact that I think the program 
should be accelerated, and that is the basis of what the 
amendment does. And what we are seeking to do is exactly what 
the Chairman said, offer as a possibility of the way to fund 
this, to say that, look, if you had added expenses tracking 
down countries because of the nation that they came from, which 
is a reasonable thing, that the Attorney General has the 
ability----
    Mr. Frank. But here is the problem with that, and that is, 
the cost is incurred--when you are checking on a student, what 
if you find out that this is not a student who is a problem. 
They still have incurred the cost, and if the rationale is cost 
recovery, then an innocent student could be the occasion for 
cost recovery, because you have got to look at them.
    It seems to me we are singling out individuals from 
countries because they are bad countries, and I wish we would 
stick to the bad countries. If the individual shouldn't be let 
in, that is a visa issue; but if the individual passes muster 
and he is not in money laundering and these other things, I 
really don't see any reason why we should single him or her out 
for a higher fee. Then when you say we are telling the FBI----
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Frank. I would yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I can understand the--Mr. Weiner's rationale 
that if there is additional scrutiny, you need to pay for it, 
but as I am listening to this debate, singling out student 
visas, what about B-1 visas? What about J visas?
    I think we should work on this between now and the floor to 
make sure that we have got a system that works. And I yield 
back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Weiner 
amendment. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Weiner. I ask for a recorded vote, reluctantly.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested.
    Mr. Frank. You are going to have to pay the stenographer's 
fee for this recorded vote.
    Mr. Cannon. Would the Chairman consider another oral vote 
so we can have more clarity?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Without objection, the 
previous vote is vitiated.
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    Mr. Frank. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman. Let 
us have the record vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We will have a record vote if the 
gentleman from Massachusetts insists. Those in favor will as 
your names are called answer aye. Those opposed will vote no.
    The question is on adoption of the Weiner amendment, and 
the Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus passes.
    Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler votes aye.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes aye.
    Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller votes aye.
    Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa votes aye.
    Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart votes ayes.
    Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake votes aye.
    Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes no.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes no.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes no.
    Mr. Boucher?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler passes.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes no.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee? Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes no.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes no.
    Mr. Delahunt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler.
    Mr. Wexler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler votes aye.
    Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin votes no.
    Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes aye.
    Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Pass.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff passes.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members who 
wish to record or change their votes?
    The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Mr. Schiff was that an aye?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members--the gentleman from 
Tennessee.
    Mr. Jenkins. Am I recorded?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is the House Member from Tennessee, 
Mr. Jenkins, recorded?
    The Clerk. I don't have Mr. Jenkins recorded.
    Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
    The Clerk. Aye. Mr. Jenkins, aye.
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are all Members recorded correctly? 
If so, the Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 25 ayes and 8 nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is agreed to.
    Further amendments to title II?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment, and could the gentlewoman designate which of her 
many amendments she is offering now?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I am not sure how to designate, 
but it deals with the Federal courts and the ability to file in 
Federal courts.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Judicial review.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentlewoman from Texas can 
inform the Clerk what the number in the top left-hand corner 
is, the Clerk will be able to correctly report her amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. 003.
    The Clerk. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't have 003.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. None of the clerks have amendment 
003. Would the gentlewoman from Texas like to try again with 
another amendment?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No. I am going to wait until they find it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Further amendments to title 
II? Are there further amendments to title II? If not, title II 
is closed.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, there are further amendments 
to title II.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, nobody offered amendments to 
title II.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I cannot--I am trying to get the Clerk--I 
have a number of them there. What am I supposed to do?
    I can read them out and they can find them. 007.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield? Do you 
have a copy of your amendment?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield, and I have 
copies here for them to review if they would desire to do so.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk does not have 003. I 
offered to allow the gentlewoman from Texas to----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. 007.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Without objection, the 
closure of title II will be vitiated.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment 007. I have a number 
of amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report Ms. Jackson 
Lee's 007.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    In section 206(3) of the bill, strike ``making''----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Texas will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I will not 
take the full 5 minutes.
    This is an important step that this legislation has taken, 
and that is to recognize the importance of strengthening the 
law enforcement responsibilities, as well as the law 
enforcement tools at the Canadian border.
    Certainly we have been friends of both our----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are prepared to accept this 
amendment.
    Mr. Conyers. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will be happy to yield.
    Mr. Conyers. We feel this is a very important amendment, 
and we would accept it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I thank you very much, and if I 
could just conclude, I thank the both the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member.
    This is to give more detail and more direction to the kind 
of technology and the kind of coordination that should go on 
between Canada and the United States, between the Canadian 
police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the kind of 
technology that should be used. And I thank the gentleman for 
accepting it, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The question is on Jackson 
Lee 007. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Those opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have another amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments to 
title II?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. 003.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the Clerk have 003?
    The Clerk. No, Mr. Chairman. We don't have 003.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk does not have 003.
    I am informed that the Democratic photocopier is broke 
because it has blown a fuse, burnt too many amendments.
    Would you like to use ours?
    Okay. Mr. Conyers will be writing them out in longhand.
    Without 003, does the gentlewoman from Texas have another 
amendment?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, 174
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the Clerk have 174?
    The Clerk. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report amendment 
174.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered from--offered by 
Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. ``at the end of subtitle A of title 
II of the bill, insert the following: Section'' blank, ``Study 
on Targeting Individuals for''----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This has been a trying couple of weeks for all of us who 
have tried to balance the respect for diversity, the respect 
for the recognition of the contributions that immigrants who 
come from all parts of the world make to the United States.
    The President has been uniquely forthright in indicating 
that this effort and tragedy is not an attack on the Islamic 
faith. It is not an attack on Muslims. It is not an attack on 
people of certain parts of the world.
    As we ensure that our borders are safe and as we ensure 
that our communities are safe, I believe it is extremely 
important for us to turn words into action to ensure that there 
is no special emphasis on those of a particular heritage in 
terms of being stopped at places where there is enhanced 
security.
    This is a simple request for there to be a study at the 
point of inspections under section 235 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act and to determine whether there is targeting 
based on race ethnicity or gender because of suspicion that the 
individual may be inadmissible under our Immigration and 
Nationality Act and to provide a report. This is to give 
credence to the comments being made by our President.
    We all know that there have been terrible incidents that 
don't relate particularly to targeting, but we do know that 
there have been stoppings and that we found that individuals 
have been completely innocent. We want to give the tools to the 
Attorney General to be able to enforce the tools that he has or 
to enforce against those who are involved in terrorist 
activities, but we also want to protect the innocent; and I 
would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    While we in the Congress want to eliminate all forms of terrorism, 
and give law enforcement officers the appropriate tools to accomplish 
this goal, it is vitally necessary that it be done in a fair, 
thoughtful and equitable manner without violating the basic tenants of 
our democratic principles; which are freedom, due process, and civil 
rights.
    It is imperative that we eliminate as well as prevent all forms of 
targeting by law enforcement officers along the border and throughout 
the United States that could solely be based on race, ethnic origin, 
gender, or sexual orientation. Therefore, it is imperative that the 
Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a study 
for the collection and reporting of nationwide data on traffic stops 
along the borders and throughout the United States.
    Last April, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Border 
Patrol Agents may not consider an individual's ``Hispanic appearance'' 
as a fact deciding whether to stop motorists for questions near the 
U.S.-Mexico border. The Court held that, ``Stops based on race or 
ethnic appearance send the underlying message to all our citizens that 
those who are not white are judged by the color of their skin alone . . 
. that they are in effect assumed to be potential criminals first and 
individuals second.'' While the Court has spoken, it is time that the 
Congress get involved in this issue.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back at this time, yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, seek recognition?
    Mr. Conyers. I rise in reluctant opposition.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Conyers. I will explain why.
    First of all, we have a racial profiling bill that the 
gentlelady is a--she is a very strong supporter of, and we are 
in negotiations that have begun in the Department of Justice 
that are ongoing, and we are in the process of coming up with a 
much larger bill.
    My recommendation to my friend in Texas is that we include 
the particularities of immigration and profiling, which is a 
very important part of our racial profiling bill--include this 
and then accompanying examination of it, because all of this 
has been, I think, pretty well documented. But we can go into 
it with greater particularity, because doing it this way could 
give way to several different kinds of examinations on other 
levels.
    The bill that we are all on--almost all of the Members, 
many of the Members in the Committee--has successfully passed 
the entire House in one session. It passed the Committee twice 
last year.
    So it is for these reasons that we want to keep all this 
together. And I would urge that we either withdraw this 
amendment with the appreciation----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers.--that we would incorporate it into our larger 
study or that we would--if it is not withdrawn, that we would 
probably have to oppose it.
    And I yield to my friend.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman knows the great respect I have for him. Let 
me raise my concerns as to why I propose this amendment at this 
time, and that is, of course, not to be caught up in the moment 
of what we are trying to do. But this bill is moving with all 
due and deliberate speed to be on the floor of the House next 
week.
    My concern is--and I would be delighted to work with the 
gentleman. My concern is that as we implement this legislation, 
as it is passed, as the President signs it, will we have 
difficulty in the enhanced inspections and security processes 
at the border; and at the border, will we then have a troubling 
circumstance of--while we are attempting to thwart terroristic 
activities and those who would come into our country on the 
basis of terroristic activities, would we also be hampering the 
innocent?
    I would be happy to work with the gentleman in any 
compromise that we have in terms of how the bill that I so 
enthusiastically support. Would we be able to move that quickly 
now for a markup or a hearing in the very near future?
    Mr. Conyers. Well, let me agree with the gentlelady that 
these are important considerations in a bill that is moving 
quite rapidly; and I would point out that we are now creating 
within this bill a Deputy Attorney General for Civil Rights and 
Civil Liberties to really get on top of this. So I don't think 
that we are going to lose any of the support, especially for a 
study.
    I think we can go beyond that in the present bill that is 
moving with such rapidity.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield just for a 
moment?
    Is there a possibility to have report language or some 
comment about the unfair targeting of----
    Mr. Conyers. Absolutely. No question about it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me add, then, if language 
precisely could be written that has report language in it, or 
is in the report language frankly, that emphasizes this problem 
that I see coming, and if we can work together with this 
language in the larger bill, I would be happy to withdraw it at 
this time.
    Mr. Conyers. Can I ask the gentlelady to join with me in 
drawing up the language?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back to the gentleman. It is his 
time.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, does the gentlelady withdraw her 
amendment?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will withdraw the amendment, working 
with you on the report language.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Further amendments to title----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. 003, has that been found? Thank you very 
much.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the long-lost 
003.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Clerk. ``amendment to H.R. 2975, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas. In section 236A(b) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as proposed to be inserted by section 203 of 
the bill, strike `in the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia' and insert `initiated in any district 
court of the United States.' ''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I do recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the 
rights of legal aliens and, of course, undocumented individuals 
are different from those of American citizens, but I would 
offer to say that this is a simplistic and not detrimental 
amendment, and that is to allow the appeal of a person's 
detention in any district court in the United States.
    I make note that restricting this review to the District 
Court of the District of Columbia would be rendering the review 
almost meaningless to those who may need it and who are in 
different parts of the country. If a detainee is a resident of 
my home State of Texas, for instance, we would be in fact 
ensuring that previously retained counsel, witnesses in that 
person's defense, their family, other resources which might be 
available to the person close to home would have no possibility 
of participating in the proceedings.
    We do realize that this legislation will capture or 
incorporate the guilty, and it will also help the innocent, 
meaning those who are innocent of terroristic activities. They 
may have other violations, but they certainly would not be 
defined as terrorists. To take them away from their 
jurisdictions in their particular State diminishes their 
ability to present a defense; and do we actually believe that 
it is possible to respect the concerns of due process for this 
person if we have allowed for a review, no matter how great the 
scope, limited to a particular court, thereby limiting the 
resources that they have to present their case?
    I would ask my colleagues to view this as a technical 
change allowing the courts of other areas to review these 
cases. It is atypical to find much diversion in immigration 
case law, and if there is a question that the Ninth Circuit 
would be different from the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, 
I think that there is a consistency under the laws; and I would 
ask that the amendment be accepted.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the portion of section 203 
that limits judicial review of detention decisions to the U.S. District 
Court in the District of Columbia. Instead, my amendment would permit 
review in any district court.
    It is my concern, Mr. Chairman, that by restricting this review to 
the District Court in the District of Columbia we would be rendering 
the review almost meaningless to those who need it most. If a detainee 
is a resident of my home state of Texas, for instance, we would in fact 
be ensuring that previously retained counsel, witnesses in his defense, 
family, and other resources which might be made available to him closer 
to home, would have no possibility of participating in the proceedings.
    Do we actually believe that it is possible to respect the concerns 
for due process for this person if we have allowed for a review, no 
matter how great the scope, which by its technical structure does not 
allow for appropriate access to every available resource? This 
endangers our most cherished constitutional protections for judicial 
review in an entirely unreasonable way.
    The provision of section 203 that limits review to the District 
Court of the District of Columbia so minimizes the potential to affect 
change on the alien's behalf that it the virtually eliminates the 
protections afforded by review, and should therefore be amended as I 
have proposed.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
    Mr. Smith. I am trying to find out where you are amending 
the bill.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is 48, line 15 in the bill.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I assume that I have to yield back. I 
can't reserve my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, you can't.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Smith, seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that the 
Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Mr. Gekas, has left 
for a long-standing commitment and will be gone for another 15 
minutes or so; and in his absence, he has asked me to fill in 
for him, which I am happy to do.
    Mr. Chairman, actually the reason to oppose this amendment 
is provided by the author of the amendment in one of the last 
statements that she just made, where she expressed concern 
about, quote, ``much diversity in immigration case law.''.
    Under the base bill, mandating exclusive jurisdiction for 
judicial review of any action or decision to detain a suspected 
terrorist under proposed section 236A of the INA will lead to 
consistent application of the law. That is why we need to 
oppose this amendment. We don't want to make it inconsistent, 
as the gentlewoman mentioned a while ago.
    There is no procedural value to a district court decision, 
and therefore no district court judge is required to follow the 
decision of any other district court judge. While there is no 
Presidential value to a decision of a judge of the D.C. 
District Court, decisions of the D.C. District Court are 
binding on all D.C. District Court judges. The circuit court 
decision, unless reviewed by the Supreme Court, is the law with 
respect to this provision.
    While other circuit court decisions are binding on the 
district courts within their jurisdiction, allowing venue in 
any district court, as this amendment would do, could result in 
11 different rules for application review of section 236A from 
the 11 different circuit courts.
    Venue in the District Court for the District of Columbia is 
consistent with other mandatory venue provisions in the act. 
The act provides that judicial review of determinations under 
the expedited removal provisions and implementation of the 
expedited removal provision is available only in the D.C. 
District Court. Most importantly, the decision of the judge 
after a hearing before the alien terrorist removal court may 
only be appealed to the D.C. District Court.
    So, Mr. Chairman, again the reason to oppose the amendment 
is because it would allow for so many inconsistent rulings and 
determinations of immigration law; and I, like the gentleman 
from Texas, would like to avoid that diversity in immigration 
case law.
    So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and vote 
for the consistent application of the law as is found in the 
underlying bill.
    Mr. Hyde. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. I will be more than happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Hyde. I just would like to remind the Committee that in 
the 1964 Voting Rights Act we had quite a battle over the 
requirement by the drafters and the perpetrators of the bill 
requiring that any litigation be brought in the Circuit Court 
of the District of Columbia.
    I felt that was an imposition. If you had a litigation to 
correct circumstances having to do with the voting rights act 
in Greenville, South Carolina, or Memphis, Tennessee, there was 
a U.S. District Court nearby perfectly qualified to hear that 
case, but no you had to get on the Greyhound bus and come to 
Washington and file it in the district court here.
    So the notion that you have one court to file these types 
of litigation in is not new. It has been around at least----
    Mr. Frank. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hyde.--in the Voting Rights Act.
    Mr. Smith. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his 
comments, and now I will be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. The gentleman from Illinois didn't finish his 
sentence. Has he changed his mind on that position that he 
wants opposed? Is that the punch line?
    Mr. Hyde. I am not comfortable with forcing people into a 
particular court.
    Mr. Frank. So the gentleman will vote for the amendment?
    Mr. Hyde. I think we have a court system that is spread out 
over the country to accommodate the people.
    On the other hand, there is something to be said for 
consistency in a particularly technical area of the law, and 
they are talking about immigration; but I frankly come down on 
the side of supporting the amendment and deploring the rigidity 
of the Voting Rights Act requiring you to go to that court.
    Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Texas.
    Mr. Barr. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you. I just wanted to associate myself with 
the remarks of the distinguished former Chairman and current 
Chairman of the International Relations Committee in support of 
this amendment.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on----
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. 
Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, as one of the people that was 
around when the original Voter Rights Act was enacted, maybe 
not the only person but one of the people, I think our former 
Chairman, his memory has--he was getting ready to come on 
board, but at any rate, I want to express the concerns 
articulated by the gentlemen from Illinois and Georgia that 
there is merit in reconsidering this proposal. I would not like 
at this hour for anything untoward to happen to this idea, and 
I would implore the gentlelady from Texas to withdraw this so 
that we can all examine this without it having met some 
untimely demise at this hour at night, and I assure you we will 
give it our considered and concerned examination, because it 
may not have gotten this in the consideration of 57 other 
amendments to this bill and I would yield to her now if it is 
her inclination.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. First of all, let me thank the Ranking 
Member, because he above all has a great history, and let me 
thank both Mr. Barr and Mr. Hyde. I would imagine there may be 
others that appreciate the position that the particular 
individual is put in, but if I might qualify the distinction on 
the Voter Rights Act, though, I don't want to discourage my 
supporters. This probably has even more weight because these 
individuals are detained, and so they are not even able to get 
on the Greyhound bus and get to the D.C. Courts.
    This is troubling for me, Mr. Conyers. This is I think an 
important change in this legislation, and I would be interested 
as to whether there is a procedure or a new way to determine 
what our support is on this legislation, on this particular 
amendment, because I don't want to lose the opportunity to have 
it in, and I don't want to jeopardize it, as you have 
mentioned, and the Chairman is being very kind in his indulging 
us on this.
    Mr. Conyers. It is a legitimate concern on your part. So I 
will assure you that I will vote for it and we will dispose of 
this amendment tonight.
    Mr. Delahunt. Would the gentleman from Michigan yield?
    Mr. Conyers. With pleasure.
    Mr. Delahunt. I think probably we should just go and have a 
vote on it at this point in time, but I can't just let the 
remarks of the gentleman from Texas go without a response in 
terms of consistency. Well, presumably the substantive law is 
not be inconsistent throughout the entire United States. The 
standards hopefully are the same. I mean, when you talk about 
inconsistency, if I could ask my friend from Texas what he 
means specifically, I would be interested in an answer.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, I have no further comments. I will yield 
to the gentleman.
    Mr. Berman. I just hope that if we are going to have a 
rollcall vote, we know it is going to be a rollcall vote that 
prevails in favor of the amendment, because otherwise I would 
take the gentleman from Michigan's suggestion that in the 
spirit of the way a number of things have been worked out up to 
tonight and which I anticipate can be worked out between now 
and the time this bill comes to the floor, we--a record vote 
losing an important issue like this could be more damaging than 
the gentleman from Michigan suggested.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield? I don't know 
whose time it is.
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. This is a very important issue, as several 
are to me. And obviously I do not--I do hear from Mr. Hyde and 
Mr. Barr, and I thank them. I am not hearing from a number of 
other Members. But I would say this to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. This is an issue that would warrant 
bipartisanship. This is an issue simply that gives access to 
courts who have done it before.
    If there are no further Members on the other side willing 
to indicate by their public acknowledgment that they would vote 
for this, it is of such value and importance to me that I will 
at this time withdraw it so that we can be sure that it is in 
the language of the bill. That is more important to me than 
to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--jeopardize this not passing.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. You 
don't need unanimous consent for the author to withdraw an 
amendment.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts----
    Mr. Frank. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Texas. It is clear this is an issue about which 
there is legitimate division, and I just wanted to urge the 
gentleman from Texas--I know we want to do this--to work with 
the Chairman and the Ranking Member. There are potential 
compromises. Forcing people to come to Washington imposes some 
hardships on them. There could be some alleviation. There are 
questions of counsel. There are questions of compensation. I 
think this is something that could be worked out and perhaps 
even wind up with some beneficial approach that would 
compensate people for this, because I just want to say I 
appreciate what the gentleman did, and many of us who intend 
ultimately to support the bill at this stage want to express 
this is not the last we hear of this and think there is room 
for some kinds of compromise that will preserve the legal 
requirements that we are trying to get at but alleviate the 
hardships that would be caused.
    Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield just briefly?
    Mr. Frank. Yes, I will yield to my friend from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Watt. In the process of doing that, I would like to 
point out that there was a very strong basis for doing what was 
done under the Voting Rights Act at the time it was done, 
because to have judges deciding voting rights issues sitting on 
district courts in the South at that time was just not a 
practical thing to do.
    Mr. Frank. As I said, I think we will take note that this 
is a very important issue and it is one of the ones that I hope 
we will be able to work out before we come to the floor next 
week.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further amendments to title II?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk, Line 961.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report Jackson Lee 
961.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I don't have 961.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk does not have 961. Are 
there further amendments----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to have it 
Xeroxed. I am not sure--all of our amendments were in. They 
were in. We would like to have the opportunity to have----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will look again to see if 
Jackson Lee 961 is in the pile of any of the three of you up 
there.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment here 961, 
with no name.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman from Texas 
wish to claim maternity to no-name 961?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It is the Jackson Lee amendment, thank 
you. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the newly 
found amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee. Add at the end the following: Title, blank, hate crimes 
section, prohibition of certain acts of violence. Section 245 
of title 18, United States Code, as amended.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved. Without 
objection, the amendment will be considered as read, and the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, will be recognized for 
5 minutes, subject to the reservation of the point of order.
    [The amendment follows:]
      
      

  

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would 
ask that my entire statement be put in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    Mr. Chairman:
    I offer this amendment to establish enhanced penalties for persons 
who commit acts of violence against other persons because of the actual 
or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, or disability of any person.
    Under my amendment, a perpetrator who willfully commits a crime 
motivated by hate shall be imprisoned a minimum of 10 years or fined, 
or both; or imprisoned up to life and fined, or both, if the crime 
results in death, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt 
of any of these crimes.
    Hate crimes are not new; they have been around for as long as 
civilizations have existed.
    Today, we know that hate crimes still exist and that they are not 
like any other type of crime. They are committed only because the 
victim is different from the victimizer.
    On September 11, 2001, United States citizens were brutally 
terrorized in New York City and Washington, D.C. But the effects 
rippled across our entire nation and beyond. Thousands of lives 
perished as a result of these unthinkable terrorist acts allegedly 
carried out by members of the extremist Islamic group led by Osama bin 
Laden.
    The backlash of these attacks has put American against American. 
Murders and attacks against citizens resembling Middle Easterners have 
occurred. Innocent people died because they looked like the Islamic 
extremists allegedly responsible for the September 11th tragedies.
    The FBI and Justice Department were investigating 40 alleged hate 
crimes across the country involving reported attacks on citizens and 
religious institutions.
    In Mesa, Arizona, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh Indian immigrant, was 
shot to death because he was dark-skinned, bearded, and wore a turban. 
Frank Silva Roque executed shootings at two Mesa gas stations, one of 
which Sodhi owned, and a house Roque had sold to an Afghan couple.
    Roque, who allegedly killed Sodhi as part of a multiple-incident 
shooting rampage, was charged with first-degree murder, three counts of 
drive-by shooting, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and 
three counts of endangerment.
    According to police reports, Roque pulled up to a Chevron station 
on the afternoon of September 15 and fired at Sodhi. Roque then headed 
to a Mobile station 10 miles away, where he fired several shots at the 
back of a Lebanese-American clerk but missed.
    In the third incident, police believe Roque drove to a home he once 
owned and fired at the front door. One victim, who is of Afghan 
descent, was about to open the front door to leave when he heard the 
shots.
    Sergeant Mike Goulet said the police were not classifying the 
shootings as hate crimes.
    However, Special Assistant County Attorney Barnett Lotstein is 
alleging the motive behind these heinous crimes is hate. Arizona does 
not have a hate-crimes criminal charge per se, but the law does allow 
the court to consider the motivation as an aggravating factor in 
sentencing. It could make the difference between a 25-year to life 
sentence and life in prison without parole.
    Because Sikh attire bears a superficial resemblance to bin Laden's, 
attackers in the United States have targeted Sikh men as well as 
Muslims and Arabs in an apparent racial and religious backlash since 
the attacks. Male Sikhs, who are neither Arab nor Muslim, wear 
untrimmed beards and turbans that cover their uncut hair as a vestige 
of the centuries of battles they fought against Muslim conquerors of 
the Punjab, a region now divided between India and Pakistan.
    In Dallas, police have been investigating the death of Waqar Hasan, 
a 46-year old Pakistani Muslim. In Irving, a mosque was covered in 
bullets. In Denton, a mosque was firebombed.
    Personal attacks based on religion and appearances represent the 
kind of oppression that Americans have opposed all around the world.
    This isn't the first time hate motivated crimes have taken the 
lives of innocent people. When are we going to act? Are we going to 
continue to sit around and pray that it'll go away? Or are we just 
waiting until someone we love is taken away from us by an act of hate?
    Now, more than ever, we need legislation to punish crimes motivated 
by hate against ethnicity, religion, and gender. These crimes cannot be 
tolerated. It is our responsibility as elected lawmakers to ensure that 
our citizens are able to live their lives without fear of how they 
look, who they worship, and who they love. Many Sikhs fear attacks by 
their neighbors, stay in their homes, only go out in groups, and try 
not to travel after dark. We must ensure that we feel safe where we 
are.
    The strength of our country lies in the differences of its 
citizens. We must work together to make stronger anti-hate crime laws 
in order to preserve our values of freedom and tolerance.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will speak to the intent of this 
particular legislation, and I want to recognize that there is 
an existing hate crimes initiative that is going through this 
House. I am disappointed that we have not had an opportunity to 
have hearings in this session or to have a markup.
    Mr. Chairman, there is no order in this room.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas is 
correct. The Committee will be in order. That includes the 
staff. The gentlewoman may proceed.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We are facing some enormous cliffs to 
climb starting from September 11th, 2001. We have to in our 
heart find the values that we cherish of a quality and 
democracy, respect for the individual, and at the same time 
have the strength of character to respond to the tragedy and 
the devastation that happened to our fellow Americans and many 
others.
    This legislation is to ensure that we hold true to our 
values. It is legislation to acknowledge a Sikh Indian in Mesa, 
Arizona, an immigrant, shot to death because he was dark 
skinned, bearded, and wore a turban. The individual who 
executed the shootings at two Mesa gas stations, one of which 
the deceased owned and a house that the perpetrator had sold to 
an Afghan couple. The individual who killed Mr. Saw as part of 
a multiple incident shooting rampage was charged with first 
degree murder, three counts of drive-by shooting, three counts 
of attempted first degree murder and three counts of 
endangerment, but he made the point that he was happy to have 
shot them and that clearly he would have done it again.
    He fired several shots at a Lebanese American Clerk but 
missed. He was clearly on a rampage. He was clearly acting out 
of hate. He was clearly seeking to intimidate a large group of 
individuals.
    I think this terrorist bill would be that much more 
enhanced if we added legislation that would condemn any acts of 
individuals that would believe that they could be in place of 
law enforcement and go about our community shooting and maiming 
those who did not look like them, whether they wore a turban, 
whether they did prayer 6 days a week, whether they dressed in 
the full regalia of the many Muslim women or they covered their 
faces. I think it is important that a statement about hate 
crimes be included in this legislation.
    What it does is it says Americans will not be intimidated 
to become like the perpetrators. We will not be hateful. We 
will not undermine our values. We will not be frightened into 
undermining our values. What we will do is that we will stand 
for what is right, and that is prevent the heinous acts against 
innocent individuals. The acts on September 11th were heinous. 
They were outrageous. We must Sikh and bring to justice the 
terrorists. We must respond. But we also must deal a blow to 
those who would hatefully go about injuring the innocent.
    With that, I yield back my time and ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Texas 
insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, on the way to insisting on my 
point of order let me also make the point that no noncitizen 
outside the United States has the constitutional right to free 
speech, but I do press my point of order simply because the 
amendment does not meet the fundamental purpose test and, more 
specifically, this is title II dealing with immigration. The 
amendment deals with criminal law, particularly hate crime, and 
so I do insist on my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For the reasons stated the point of 
order is sustained.
    Are there further amendments to title II? If not, title II 
is closed.
    Title III, entitled Criminal Justice, is now open for 
amendment. Are there amendments to title III? For what purpose 
does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
Scott 021.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report Scott 021.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Scott. In 
the matter proposed to be added to section 3559 of title 18, 
United States Code by section 302, strike ``federal terrorism 
offense'' and insert ``offense listed in section 3286.''
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would like to handle en bloc 
this amendment and the amendment designated Scott No. 4, en 
bloc. They are very similar.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report Scott 4.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Scott. In 
the matter proposed to be added to section 3583 of title 18, 
United States Code by section 308, strike ``Federal terrorism 
offense'' and insert ``offense listed in Section 3286.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendments 
will be considered en bloc. Hearing none, so ordered and the 
gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendments follow:]
      
      

  

    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the 
application of these sections to the same types of crime to 
which we limited RICO and total removal of statute of 
limitations. Under section 302, in several courtrooms of 
terrorism for which the maximum penalty is now only 5 years 
would suddenly be subject to a life sentence even though they 
do not involve any threat to human safety and only involve 
relatively minor property damage or sometimes not at all. They 
are offenses which clearly are not the kinds of offenses that 
we think of when we talk about antiterrorism offenses, and so 
on both sections we want to strike ``Federal terrorism 
offense,'' which includes some fairly minor offenses and use 
the same language we used in other sections to restrict this to 
actual terrorism offenses.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself in 
opposition to the amendments en bloc. Section 302 allows a 
judge to impose a life sentence only if the crime is listed as 
a Federal terrorism offense and it is shown to have the intent 
to influence, coerce or retaliate against the government. 
Section 308 allows a judge to impose lifetime supervision on a 
criminal after release from prison, only if the person who is 
convicted of one of the offenses listed in section 309 and the 
intent element is met. These amendments would have the result 
of limiting the possibility of a life sentence only to crimes 
of Federal terrorism that are not subject to any statute of 
limitations. The amendment would have the effect of limiting 
supervision of a criminal act or prison for any term of years 
up to life, as the judge deems necessary, only to crimes of 
Federal terrorism that are not subject to this statute of 
limitations. The alternative maximum penalty section does not 
create a mandatory life sentence. The post release supervision 
section does not mandate that the judge impose a lifetime 
supervision of a convicted criminal. A judge may only impose 
the life sentence if the jury makes a finding beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the crime was calculated to effect 
government conduct or retaliate against the government. A judge 
may only impose lifetime supervision of a criminal after 
finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was calculated 
to affect government conduct or retaliate against the 
government. The judge would still have the discretion to impose 
lesser sentences if he feels the crime does not warrant a life 
sentence. The judge would still have the discretion to impose 
less than lifetime supervision if he feels the criminal does 
not pose a threat to society or national security.
    This is a matter to be determined in the courtroom. The two 
Scott amendments take it away from the judge.
    Certain crimes such as computer-related crimes may not be 
seen as serious enough to warrant a life sentence or lifetime 
supervision, but if someone damages 911 or the air traffic 
control system, it could result in serious injury or death to 
many people. Federal terrorism offenses have been narrowed 
already from the Administration request to get at only the most 
serious offenses.
    This amendment would not allow a life sentence for crimes 
such as train wrecking, destruction of a hazardous liquid 
pipeline facility, possession of biological agents such as 
anthrax, bringing in explosives on an aircraft or destruction 
or sabotage of national defense materials, even when those 
crimes are shown to be done with an intent to commit terrorism. 
The amendment would not allow a judge to impose lifetime 
supervision for someone convicted for serious crimes such as 
assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon, train 
wrecking, destruction of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility, 
possession of biological agents, bringing in explosives on an 
aircraft or destruction or sabotage of national defense 
materials even when those crimes are shown with the intent to 
commit terrorism.
    I ask the Committee to reject the amendment and yield back.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I rise with the feeling that 
underneath the two Scott amendments is the consideration that a 
lifetime supervision sentence should be reserved for the most 
heinous offenses and that it is antithetical to an effective 
criminal justice system that we have this created into our 
criminal justice penalties to be perhaps used widely, but 
perhaps not used widely, and so I wanted to commend the 
gentleman from Virginia for what I consider to be the reasoning 
behind that and assure him that this discussion is very 
important, and I think that more and more people will study 
this and recognize that it is a very reasonable way of putting 
some restrictions around what is a very strong punishment.
    [7:50 p.m.]
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Conyers. Of course.
    Mr. Scott. Under the definition of any Federal terrorism 
offense and affecting governmental actions, would that actually 
cover student demonstrations where you have--where someone gets 
in a fight when you are trying to get your college to divest 
from investments in South Africa?
    Mr. Conyers. Theoretically, it is possible. We would hope 
that the judiciary would be as rational in their understanding 
of this provision as I think the membership of this Committee 
is.
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield? And that is why we 
limited it to just those offenses listed in section 3286, which 
are the serious offenses and would exclude student 
demonstrations, violence at--getting into a fight during a 
demonstration, which are not the kinds of crimes for which a 
life sentence would be appropriate.
    Mr. Conyers. Well, the gentleman is merely drawing this a 
little bit more carefully with the recognition that if it is 
not written in with these limitations, it could be misused. And 
there is no reason for us to be putting something--proposing 
something into law when we know very well that the limiting 
amendments that you have offered would help make it clear. And 
I think it would be a more effective instrument of punishment 
were it prescribed by the parameters that are suggested in the 
amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired. The question is on the adoption of the Scott 
amendments en bloc. Those in favor will signify by saying aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and 
the amendment is agreed to. Further amendments to title III?
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose the gentleman from 
Virginia seek recognition?
    Mr. Scott. I have an amendment at the desk. Number 3.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report Scott 3.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Scott. 
Page 83, line 10, before ``crime,'' insert ``Federal 
terrorism.''.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this involves people who cannot 
possess biological agents or toxins. Section 305 lists the 
kinds of people that cannot--that are called restrictive 
persons and people who have been, for example, convicted of a 
crime--convicted of a felony, adjudicated mentally defective or 
been committed to a mental institution, an alien who is a 
national of a country which has been certified by the Secretary 
of State. But it also--a person who is a fugitive from justice. 
But it also includes, Mr. Chairman, one is who is under 
indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment to a term of 
more than 1 year.
    Now the person hasn't been convicted of anything, just 
accused of something. It is important that we maintain a 
principle that people are presumed innocent until proven 
guilty. This amendment would restrict those people who are 
under indictment to those who are under indictment for a 
Federal terrorism offense. If you are indicted for that, you 
could be a restricted person. Without this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, a pharmacist could be charged with Medicare fraud or 
a scientist who otherwise could possess such material could be 
charged with writing a bad check. And during the pendency of 
the trial at which they may even be found innocent, they would 
not be able to continue in their normal professional duties.
    I think this would allow those who are actual terrorists 
not to possess those materials, but it would not be so broad as 
to cover people who are charged and may in fact be innocent of 
crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yields back. What purpose 
does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want my 
colleagues to be aware that section 305 provides for a list of 
persons who are prohibited from having access to a biological 
agent or toxin. This list was based on prohibitions on who can 
own handguns, but it has been limited further from that list. 
The list, in fact, has been narrowed from the Administration 
bill. Biological agents in the hands of someone accused of a 
felony such as murder, kidnapping or assault with a deadly 
weapon could be extremely dangerous.
    This amendment would amend the list of persons who are 
prohibited from access to biological agents to those who have 
been indicted for a felony that was also a Federal terrorism 
offense. The list of persons restricted from access is based on 
the list of persons who are unable to use a gun with one 
exception. It has been narrowed from these provisions to 
eliminate persons convicted of domestic violence offenses.
    Mr. Chairman, a person whom the law does not recognize as 
safe enough to possess a handgun should not be given access to 
something even more lethal. Mr. Chairman, I urge my 
colleagues----
    Mr. Scott. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Did I understand you to say that if you are 
under indictment for any felony, you cannot possess a handgun?
    Mr. Smith. Reclaiming my time, the amendment would amend 
the list of persons who are prohibited from access to 
biological agents to those who have been indicted for a felony 
that was also a Federal terrorism offense.
    Mr. Scott. Well, would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. That would be the effect of the amendment. The 
bill would restrict people from possessing biological agents if 
they have been indicted for any felony. I thought I heard you 
say that if you are under indictment, you cannot--for a felony 
you cannot possess a handgun.
    Mr. Smith. Let me reclaim my time. I am not sure the 
gentleman understands. And the point is that anybody who has 
been indicted for a felony is not going to be allowed to handle 
or have access to the biological agent or toxin.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard the gentleman 
say that if you have been indicted for a felony, you could not 
possess a handgun. That is where the list came from. It is my 
understanding that you have to be convicted of a felony to lose 
your right to possess a handgun.
    Mr. Smith. Well, the underlying bill--to reclaim my time--
says that if you have been prohibited from owning a handgun 
with the one exception of domestic violence, you cannot, under 
the underlying bill, you cannot then handle the toxin or the 
biological agent.
    Mr. Scott. Again, I don't mean to press the point, but if 
you are under indictment, can you possess--if you are under 
indictment for a felony, can you possess a handgun? I thought I 
heard you say----
    Mr. Smith. That is a separate question, and I don't know 
the answer to it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas yield 
back?
    Mr. Smith. Let me respond to the gentleman's question. You 
can apparently possess a handgun if you are under indictment, 
and that is all. However, if you are under indictment, you 
cannot possess the biological agent or toxin. Does that----
    Mr. Scott. Under the bill. And my amendment would say if 
you are under an indictment for a terrorism offense, you can't 
possess them. But if you are a pharmacist under indictment for 
Medicare fraud, you ought not be prevented during the pendency 
of that indictment from continuing being a pharmacist, 
especially if he be found not guilty.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Texas has a minute 
left.
    Mr. Smith. I am getting some help, Mr. Chairman. It is my 
understanding that, for instance, the example given by Mr. 
Scott, if you are under indictment for Medicare fraud, you 
would not be able to possess the biological agent or toxin.
    Mr. Scott. Under the bill. What about a handgun?
    Mr. Smith. I am told that that would not prevent you from 
owning or possessing a handgun as well.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Texas has expired.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Frank. I want to ask a question of my friend from 
Virginia. Originally, I must say I would be inclined not to 
support his amendment, but I think I may not have fully 
understood the definition of biological agent or toxin, because 
his question leads me to think that there was a 
misunderstanding. I would ask the gentleman from Virginia, part 
of the question, I think, may be what the definition--some of 
us may not be fully familiar with the definition of biological 
agent or toxin. In other words, what you are saying is 
forbidding someone from possessing a biological agent or toxin 
would keep the person from being a pharmacist or perhaps a 
physician's assistant.
    I yield to the gentleman to describe the substance that you 
couldn't use. I presume we are not only talking about terribly 
dangerous things.
    Mr. Scott. I don't have the definition of ``agents'' in 
front of me, but they exempt toxins naturally occurring in the 
environment if the biological agent has not been cultivated, or 
collected----
    Mr. Frank. If it were to keep you from being a pharmacist, 
that is one thing. But I am reluctant without having a better 
understanding. If anyone else understands that and could define 
the biological agent or toxin, I would be glad to yield. But I 
think that is what my vote turns on, how dangerous do you have 
to be to meet this if it is listed as a select agent? Do we 
have a list of what these are? Are there such substances that 
are really in normal daily use?
    Mr. Scott. If the gentleman would yield, anybody can 
possess them unless you are a restricted person.
    Mr. Frank. I understand that. But the question is whether 
or not that is a real hardship or whether we should or 
shouldn't restrict people. I understand what it says. But I was 
looking at what--how dangerous--I guess the answer is how 
dangerous these are and, in the alternative, what legitimate 
uses are there to these things that you would have people--
where people would be at such a disadvantage.
    Well, I am being handed a definition, which I am not going 
to be able to read in time. The definition is if it is 
something dangerous. But I guess I am really not in a position 
and unless--I would need some more reassurance that these were 
not dangerous and harmful and that they had a lot of very good 
and beneficial use and effects.
    I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Scott. If anybody can possess them, they can't be that 
dangerous. Any run of the mill person off the street who is not 
under indictment can possess them. I mean they can't----
    Mr. Frank. That is not necessarily the case. There may be 
some other qualifications. You talk about a pharmacist. A 
pharmacist can have a lot of things that I can't have. So the 
fact----
    Mr. Scott. I don't have the section in front of me.
    Mr. Frank. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Scott. I said I can't answer the question.
    Mr. Frank. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on Scott 20. Those 
in favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. No. The noes 
appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to.
    Further amendments to title III? If not, title III is 
closed.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Scott. Number 6.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the Clerk have anything to say 
about what little gems are in her pile?
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by Mr. Scott. 
Page 90, beginning on line 6, strike ``appear to be intended or 
have the effect'' and insert ``are intended.''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this will tighten up the 
definition of domestic terrorism in the bill. All of us are 
intent on preventing terrorism and providing law enforcement 
the tools they need to do their work. My concern is that this 
bill's present definition of domestic terrorism is too broad 
and unclear and would include activities that few of us would 
define as domestic terrorism. The present wording of quote, 
appear to be intended or have the effect, unquote, will allow 
someone to be accused of an act of domestic terrorism based on 
appearances or effects without the traditional intent required. 
And it will kick in the bill's provisions for a single 
jurisdiction search warrant, seizing of assets, sharing of 
grand jury information. And those who are prosecuted under the 
``appear to be intended or to have the effect'' definition of 
domestic terrorism is subject to application of the RICO 
statute, elimination of statute of limitations, use of enhanced 
penalties without proving intent.
    This amendment would make certain that only those 
individuals who had the traditional means to do a terrorist act 
are investigated and prosecuted as terrorists, not the 
protester at an abortion, not the student protester who is 
sitting out in the dean's office.
    I would ask that you support the amendment, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I recognize myself in opposition to 
the amendment. The language in the bill is based upon the 
current law definition of international terrorism, which is 
included in 18 U.S.C. 2331, with a significant exception, and 
that is that the violent act is more precisely defined so as to 
exclude from the definition of domestic terrorism student 
protest. That is excluded.
    What the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia proposes 
to do is to require a tougher standard of proof for domestic 
terrorism than for international terrorism. So if the people 
who crashed the plane into the Pentagon and the World Trade 
Center were home grown terrorists rather than those who came 
from overseas and lived, the prosecutors would have had a much 
tougher standard of proof, and I don't think that is really 
what he want because terrorism is terrorism and the people who 
die and are maimed, or dead or who have been maimed. The 
question is really a question for the trier of fact, whether it 
be the court or the jury, to determine. And it is difficult to 
prove exactly what is on someone's mind. That is the subjective 
standard that is best determined not legislatively, but by the 
jury that hears the case or, if it is a court trial, by the 
judge himself.
    So I would ask that the amendment be rejected and yield 
back my time.
    The question is on the Scott amendment No. 6. Those in 
favor will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The noes appear 
to have it. The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Further amendments to title III? If there are none, title 
III is closed.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I just learned that there may be a 
technical amendment with the amendment we adopted about 
lifetime supervision and penalties. And I would like to 
reconsider--move to reconsider the vote we took on amendments 2 
and 4. Unanimous consent to vitiate the vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is unanimous consent 
to vitiate the Scott amendments en bloc adopted earlier. 
Without objection, the vote on adoption has been vitiated. The 
question now is on adoption of the amendments. The gentleman 
from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to withdraw the 
amendment so that the technical problem can be addressed 
between here and the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn. The 
amendments en bloc are withdrawn. Are there further amendments 
to title III? Hearing none, title III is closed at last.
    Title IV, relating to financial infrastructure, is now open 
for amendment at any point. Are there amendments to title IV? 
Are there amendments to title IV? If not, title IV is closed.
    Next, title V, emergency authorization, is open for 
amendments at any point. Are there amendments to title V? Are 
there amendments to title V? If not, title V is closed. Next 
open for amendment is title VI, relating to dam security, which 
is not in the jurisdiction of this Committee, but on the 
Committee on Resources. Are there amendments to title VI? If 
not, title VI is closed.
    Finally, title VII, miscellaneous, is now open for 
amendment at any point. Are there amendments to title VII? For 
what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, 
seek recognition?
    Ms. Waters. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The point of order is reserved by 
the gentleman from Texas.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Waters to H.R. 2975, 
the PATRIOT Act of 2001. Add to the end the following: From the 
50 million in funds made available for obligation annually from 
the Fund for Victims of International Terrorism (section 2003, 
Public Law 106-386, Oct. 2000), compensation of $1.5 million 
shall be paid in FY 2002 to each survivor of the 12 American 
citizens killed in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the American 
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; in addition this Fund shall be 
available for----
    Ms. Waters. Unanimous consent to dispense with the reading 
of the bill.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes subject to the reservation of the 
point of order.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Members, 
in 1998, two United States embassies were bombed in Africa, one 
in Kenya and one in Tanzania. It was where I first heard the 
name of Osama bin Laden, who was indicted for the bombing of 
these embassies. Twelve American citizens were killed in those 
bombings. These attacks represent attacks against America and 
need our attention.
    As we all know, embassy personnel are often targeted 
because they represent the United States in a foreign country. 
The families of those victims have never been compensated. The 
brother and father of a young woman who worked for the United 
States Congress died in those bombings. Ms. Edith Barkley is a 
heartbroken woman who believes that her country has turned its 
back on her.
    While Foreign Service officers assume a reasonable level of 
risk in accepting a foreign assignment, they should not have to 
bear the burden of murder at the hands of terrorists without 
compensation for their surviving families. The fact that those 
families to date have received no compensation is even more 
alarming in light of the fact that the families of those that 
were killed in the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in 
Serbia in 1999 received 1.5 million each. I agree with the U.S. 
Decision to provide compensation for those families, but we 
must not neglect the families of Americans who were lost in 
Kenya and Tanzania.
    At this time, when we are working on an antiterrorism bill, 
I think it is appropriate to fully provide compensation for the 
1998 victims' families.
    I think it is worth mentioning that the State Department 
failed to comply with its own regulations to warn embassy 
personnel that intelligence information confirmed the existence 
of active terrorist activity in East Africa. The State 
Department also disregarded the repeated request of the Kenyan 
Ambassador for greater security to protect the embassy and its 
personnel.
    It is a travesty that these disregards of policy may have 
contributed to a loss of American life. It is a shame that we 
have not acted sooner to compensate the families, but it would 
be improper for us to address the needs arising out of the 
September 11 attacks while ignoring what happened in 1998.
    My amendment does not allocate new funds. It simply 
provides for the distribution of funds already allocated in the 
Fund for Victims of International Terrorism to the families of 
the 1998 bombing victims.
    I seek your support for this amendment that will finally 
address the need that we in Congress have overlooked for too 
long. If Osama bin Laden is responsible for those bombings and 
those murders, we should compensate those victims the same way 
we are doing for these victims who were killed or were harmed 
September 11. It is the same terrorists committing acts against 
Americans, whether they be on American soil or foreign soil. I 
think it is time that we took care of this. It is just a small 
amount of money, and I would ask my colleagues to please 
support this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman yield back the balance 
of her time?
    Ms. Waters. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Texas insists upon 
his point of order.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I do, but I also might offer a 
suggestion to the gentlewoman from California, and that is that 
the fund from which she wants to obtain these payments is $50 
million. If you total up the compensation that is suggested by 
this amendment, it would be over $7 billion, so I don't think 
the $50 million would cover it.
    Ms. Waters. I beg your pardon? What did you say?
    Mr. Smith. I don't want to go into any detail, but the 
amendment that you offered says compensation of 1.5 million for 
each of the individuals involved in the terrorist attacks.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question was, does the 
gentleman insist upon his point of order?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, I do insist on my point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman please state his point of 
order. The gentleman is recognized to make his point of order.
    Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman has to make his point 
of order for the Chair to rule on it. The regular order is for 
the gentleman who has reserved a point of order, when he is 
called upon, to either make his point of order or forever hold 
his peace.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is out of order 
because it is an appropriation and I will insist on the point 
of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas makes his 
point of order. Does the gentlewoman wish to speak on the point 
of order?
    Ms. Waters. Yes. I would like to speak on the point of 
order. First of all, I wanted to correct him about the amount 
that is involved. We are talking about 12 Americans that were 
killed, which comes to about $18 million. In addition to that, 
I would like unanimous consent----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman please speak 
to the point of order that this is an appropriation on an 
authorization bill? That is what the point of order is and that 
is what the Chair has to decide.
    Ms. Waters. Recognizing that that may be a problem, I ask 
unanimous consent to authorize rather than appropriate. 
Unanimous consent.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair has to rule on the point 
of order. It is an appropriation, which is not in the 
jurisdiction of the Committee. The Chair sustains the point of 
order.
    Ms. Waters. Unanimous consent.
    Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
will state his inquiry.
    Mr. Frank. If the gentlewoman were now to offer a fresh 
amendment which says compensation of 1.5 million is authorized 
to be appropriated for each of the 12 survivors, would that be 
in order?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Under the unanimous consent 
agreement on how this bill is to be considered, the answer is 
no, because we have gone past the title on emergency 
authorizations.
    Mr. Frank. I thought we were talking about--what is the 
definition of ``miscellaneous''? Miscellaneous did not seem to 
be me to be an exclusive----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Title V specifically related to 
emergency authorizations. Without objection, title V is 
reopened so that the gentlewoman from California can offer a 
properly drafted emergency authorization amendment. Does the 
gentlewoman from California have an amendment?
    Mr. Frank. I think she may not be able to read it.
    Ms. Waters. I have an amendment that has been roughly drawn 
up that would be an appropriate amendment, that would do the 
authorization, and I do not have----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    Mr. Frank. If the gentlewoman gives it to me, I could read 
it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
wish to become the Clerk of the Committee?
    Mr. Frank. No, Mr. Chairman. I wish to be the Assistant 
Clerk for purpose of reading something that might be hard to 
read and then hand it to the Clerk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, we will count the minority's 
salary allocation as the result of the new duties of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Frank. The amendment--as I worked on the drafting with 
the guidance of the Parliamentarian, the amendment would say 
``compensation of 1.5 million is authorized to be appropriated 
in fiscal year 2002 for each survivor of the 12 American 
citizens killed in the 1998 terrorist bombing,'' through the 
semicolon after ``Tanzania.''.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If everybody will cool it, I think 
we will get this right if we have a little bit of time and 
people do not jump into the breach. Will the gentleman from 
Massachusetts like to try?
    Mr. Frank. Let me ask a parliamentary inquiry. The 
intention was that there would be 1.5 million for each survivor 
family and it would be divided among those--for each victim.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are talking about a million-and-
a-half for each victim divided among the survivors.
    Mr. Frank. I would ask unanimous consent to offer orally an 
amendment that would say, it is authorized to be appropriated 
compensation of $1.5 million for each victim of the 1998 
terrorist bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania to be divided equally among the survivors of those 
victims--to the estate of each victim.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I am still going to reserve a 
point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Point of order is reserved.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make 
this suggestion, that, namely, we do have the gist of an 
excellent idea for which there seems to be a fair amount of 
support. Could this be added to the list of matters that you 
and I and staff ought to repair to tomorrow?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That is an excellent suggestion. 
And let me say that personally, I have a problem with a 
million-and-a-half compensation when we are only giving 
$152,000 in compensation to the deceased firefighters and 
emergency personnel who died at the collapse of the World Trade 
Center. I think there has to be some type of proportionality 
involved in this. And to give 10 times more to these victims 
than we are giving to our own public safety personnel, I just 
don't think is fair.
    Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, could we invite the gentlelady 
from California to join with our staff in these considerations?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Absolutely.
    Mr. Conyers. I thank you very much.
    Mr. Frank. Either me or the Clerk is going to come to that 
meeting.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments to 
title VII, Miscellaneous? Hearing none, title VII is closed. 
And the question now occurs on the motion to report the bill 
favorably, as amended. The Chair will order a rollcall. Those 
in favor of reporting the bill favorably as amended will as 
your names are called answer aye. Those opposed, no. And the 
Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde.
    Mr. Hyde. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde votes aye.
    Mr. Gekas.
    Mr. Gekas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gekas votes aye.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble votes aye.
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly votes aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte.
    Mr. Goodlatte. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte votes aye.
    Mr. Bryant.
    Mr. Bryant. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bryant votes aye.
    Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot votes aye.
    Mr. Barr.
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barr votes aye.
    Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins votes aye.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes aye.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes aye.
    Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus votes aye.
    Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler votes aye.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes aye.
    Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller votes aye.
    Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Issa votes aye.
    Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart votes aye.
    Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake votes aye.
    Mr. Pence.
    Mr. Pence. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence votes aye.
    Mr. Conyers.
    Mr. Conyers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers votes aye.
    Mr. Frank.
    Mr. Frank. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frank votes aye.
    Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman votes aye.
    Mr. Boucher.
    Mr. Boucher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher votes aye.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott votes aye.
    Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
    Ms. Waters.
    Ms. Waters. Pass.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters passes.
    Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan votes aye.
    Mr. Delahunt.
    Mr. Delahunt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt votes aye.
    Mr. Wexler.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin votes aye.
    Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes aye.
    Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the 
room who desire to cast or change their votes?
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters, you passed?
    Ms. Waters. I better vote for something. Miscellaneous 
section, VII, that caused me to vote aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Waters votes aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members who 
desire to cast or change their votes? The gentleman from South 
Carolina--if not, the Clerk will report.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee, you are recorded as an aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there is 36 ayes and zero nays.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the bill is favorably reported. 
Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of it 
was a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
reflecting the amendments that were agreed to today.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by the House 
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental 
or minority views.
    Now if I may have everybody's attention for a minute, the 
Chair wants to make a statement. I would like to congratulate 
everybody who has worked on this project for a job well done. 
There have been many hours that have been put in by the Members 
and staff on both sides of the aisle. The Justice Department 
has been extremely cooperative in giving information on very 
short notice and has participated in these negotiations.
    When I first announced that I wanted the regular order to 
prevail in Committee consideration of this bill, Columnist 
Robert Novak took a shot at me, saying that all I wanted to do 
was slow it down and to goof it up. Mr. Novak, we have shown 
that you are wrong, and I think that this shows that with 
respect to conflicting viewpoints and a bipartisan approach, 
the legislative process works, and everybody who has 
participated in this deserves the credit. We are all the 
winners. The terrorists are the losers.
    And the Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 8:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
             Additional Views of the Honorable Barney Frank

    I do not remember in my 21 years in the House of 
Representatives an issue that was more difficult to deal with 
than the subject matter of this bill. The terrible fact, made 
so tragically clear on September 11, that we are menaced by a 
group of fiendish, technically skilled, suicidal mass 
murderers, obviously requires us to respond by enhancing our 
ability to defend ourselves. Doing this in a manner that is 
fully consistent with our liberties, our privacy, and the right 
to be free from arbitrary mistreatment that is so important to 
Americans requires a great deal of thought, and even after 
working together on it thoroughly, no one should be sure that 
we have achieved the appropriate balance. That is why I am 
pleased that the bill worked out by Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Ranking Minority Member Conyers included a sunset provision. We 
have in this bill entrusted law enforcement officials with 
enhanced ability to monitor our lives. They now have the 
responsibility to do this in a manner that will allay the fears 
of those who think the bill goes too far, and these powers will 
be renewed 2 years from now, I believe, only if those entrusted 
with them demonstrate that this trust was entirely well placed.
    I write here to comment particularly on one part of the 
bill--unfortunately, a part not subject to the 2 year 
expiration date--which related directly to work I have done in 
my service in the House, and which I agreed to with some 
reluctance. When I arrived in Congress in 1981, we had on our 
statute books a law dating from the McCarthy era, known as the 
McCarran-Walter Act, which, among other things, severely 
restricted entry into the United States of foreigners whose 
political views various Americans found objectionable. 
Throughout the period from the 50's up to the 80's, America was 
frequently embarrassed when State Department or Justice 
Department officials acting under this authority excluded from 
America distinguished literary and political figures, lest they 
utter words too upsetting for what some people apparently 
considered to be our tender ears. Indeed, those who are today 
critical of what they deride as ``political correctness'' 
should reflect that at no point in our history have we ever 
done more to enact a binding legal code of ``political 
correctness'' then during the period when the McCarran-Walter 
Act was in effect.
    Fortunately, in 1990, Congress as part of an overall 
immigration bill largely obliterated this set of restrictions 
on what Americans can hear, and President Bush signed the bill. 
I was privileged at that time to work with then Republican 
Senator Alan Simpson to reinstate freedom of expression as part 
of American immigration law.
    And I stress here that we are talking about freedom of 
expression and debate within our own country when we deal with 
the exclusion of people with unpopular political views. Some of 
my colleagues have correctly pointed out that residents of 
foreign countries who have no legal connection to America do 
not have constitutional rights, including those of freedom of 
expression. But Americans have such rights, and it is the right 
of Americans to hear, debate with, and learn from others that 
is impinged when we exclude people because we find their 
political views unpopular, unsettling or dangerous.
    One of the concerns I had with the original draft of the 
bill submitted to us by the Justice Department was its effect 
on the work done by Senator Simpson, myself and others in 1990 
to establish freedom of expression as a principle in American 
immigration law.
    The bill would have allowed the exclusion of visa 
applicants who had ``endorsed or espoused terrorist activity.'' 
Obviously we have not just the right but the obligation to keep 
out of our country people who would come here to organize acts 
of violence, and we have a right to exclude those who have 
engaged in such activity overseas. But the mere ``espousal or 
endorsement'' of terrorist activity casts far too wide a net of 
exclusion. This is after all a grant of authority to American 
immigration officials in an area that is unchecked by judicial 
power--since there is no judicial review of any decision to 
deny a visa. Given our history, it is entirely likely that such 
a grant of authority would have led to the exclusion of people 
who had written about the right of oppressed people to respond 
with violence against their oppressors, and in specific cases, 
it almost certainly would at various points in our fairly 
recent history have been used to exclude supporters of the 
African National Congress, or the Irish Republican Army. 
Indeed, former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was once 
considered a terrorist because of his leadership of an anti-
British organization in pre-independence Israel; Nelson Mandela 
was similarly characterized as a terrorist by his own 
government and by, sadly, some in our own; and Gerry Adams was 
excluded from the U.S. as a terrorist for years until Bill 
Clinton wisely reversed that and invited him to the U.S. in a 
move that helped move forward serious peace efforts in the 
north of Ireland. And it should be noted that the exclusion of 
Gerry Adams came even after we had changed the law, which 
indicates that no amendment to the law was necessary for 
administration officials to be able to act--again without any 
judicial recourse from those excluded--to take steps that they 
thought necessary to protect our internal security.
    Given this history, I was very concerned that the 
``endorsed or espoused'' language could lead to a renewal of 
some restriction on people whom Americans should continue to 
have the right to hear if they so choose. For this reason, I 
was very pleased that one of the amendments to the Justice 
Department bill added by the House Committee's consideration 
affected this exclusion section. Specifically, the exclusion 
now applies not to anyone who endorses or espouses, but rather 
to anyone who ``has used the alien's prominence within a 
foreign state or the United States to endorse or espouse 
terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist 
activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the 
Secretary of State has determined undermines the efforts of the 
United States to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities''.
    Thus, the exclusion is not a blanket one on people who 
``endorse or espouse'' activity that some might classify as 
terrorist, but rather can only be invoked if the Secretary of 
State finds that this is more than mere expression of opinion, 
but in fact affects our efforts to prevent terrorist activity. 
This is for those who believe firmly in freedom of expression a 
crucial distinction, between the expression of opinion and 
general advocacy, which a free society should protect, and on 
the other hand efforts which are part of organized activity 
that result in actual terrorism.
    As in many other areas of this particular bill, this 
difference is easier to conceptualize than it may be to carry 
out in practice. So I write these additional views to stress 
that for me and others on the committee, our acceptance of this 
particular phrase is based on our understanding that it is not 
an effort to exclude people whose advocacy of particular ideas 
might be unpopular at a given time in America--justly or not--
but rather is an effort to empower our officials to exclude 
people whose efforts have in fact facilitated to ``terrorist 
activities''. Again, I wish that this had been one of the 
sunsetted provisions, but even though it is not, I hope that 
those entrusted with enforcing it understand that if it is used 
in an abusive fashion, the way in which exclusionary provisions 
were used in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, many of us will 
launch an effort to undo it when Congress returns in 2 years or 
so to this general subject.
    Finally, while on the subject of the power of words, I want 
also to express my disagreement with the decision to construct 
an awkward title for this bill so that it yields the acronym 
``PATRIOT.'' Only my strong commitment to freedom of expression 
in general keeps me from filing legislation to ban the use of 
acronyms in general in legislative work. But I think that the 
use of this particular one is especially unfortunate. The 
outburst of very vocal patriotism on the part of virtually all 
of us that has been part of our national response to the 
September 11 mass murders is a source of pride to me and 
others. It is entirely legitimate for those of us who are proud 
of America to reaffirm our patriotism at a time when enemies of 
freedom attack us. But invoking the word PATRIOT in the context 
of this bill gives the unfortunate impression that those who 
disagree with it are not patriots. I voted for the bill, and I 
am pleased with the work that we did collectively to provide 
for enhanced law enforcement powers in a way that I believe is 
consistent with American liberty and privacy. But I fully 
respect those who disagree with our work, and I wish we had not 
chosen a title for the bill that in any way reflects on their 
good faith in expressing that disagreement.

                                   Barney Frank.
           Additional Views of the Honorable Robert C. Scott

    The amendment to H.R. 2975 offered by, Mr. Cannon and 
adopted by the Committee in a manager amendment to the bill, is 
essentially the same as H.R. 3485, passed by the Committee in 
the 106th Congress. I have the same concerns with this part of 
H.R. 2975 as I expressed with H.R. 3485. Accordingly, I 
incorporate below as additional views to H.R. 2975, the 
relevant parts of my questions and comments during the 
Committee markup of H.R. 3485, along with the relevant parts of 
the Agency Views in a joint letter submitted by the Federal 
Departments of State and Treasury expressing their concerns 
during the consideration of H.R. 3485:
Scott Comments from the Transcript of the 6/21/2000 Judiciary Committee 
        Markup of H.R. 3485:
          Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield 
        for another question or two?
          Mr. McCollum. Certainly.
          Mr. Scott. You said there is escape for diplomatic 
        property. Is there an escape if the President views the 
        attachment of foreign property inconsistent with 
        national security? Is there a national security 
        interest exception where the President can override 
        this?
          Mr. McCollum. Initially, in the language that was 
        there, it was a broad override of national security. 
        Now we are narrowing this bill and saying that 
        commercial assets, he cannot override if it is 
        commercial in the United States. But he can for 
        diplomatic.
          Mr. Scott. Would this allow attachment of assets of 
        the foreign government outside of the United States?
          Mr. McCollum. No, it would not.
          Mr. Scott. So you could not execute a judgement if 
        the property of the terrorist state were in Canada, for 
        example?
          Mr. McCollum. That is correct.
          Mr. Scott. Could you give us a little sense of this 
        would work if the shoe were on the other foot and an 
        Iraqi who was bombed on the Persian Gulf got a 
        judgement in Iraq and wanted to attach assets that the 
        government might have in Iraq.
          Mr. McCollum. First of all, if the gentleman will 
        yield, the bill does not pertain to that. We would not 
        provide any opportunity for that to occur in this bill.
          Mr. Scott. No. If the shoe were on the other foot and 
        Iraq were to pass a similar bill and accuse us in Iraq 
        of terrorism.
          Mr. McCollum. Sure. If the gentleman will yield. That 
        is an argument diplomatically made by our State 
        Department and a concern you and I have heard I am 
        sure, Mr. Scott, many times when we get into these 
        situations where State Department never wants us to do 
        anything that might encourage another state to respond 
        in like kind. The terrorist, by very nature, would 
        potentially do that, and certainly that is possible. 
        But I do not believe that we have business assets or 
        property assets in jeopardy in Iraq. And we compensate 
        those who are injured in those situations anyway. The 
        problem is that there is no compensation for those who 
        have been injured on our side, and we do compensate 
        those who are injured abroad if we injure them.
          Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Joint Agency Views of the Departments of State and Treasury from House 
        Report No. 106-733

                              Agency Views

             TREASURY DEPUTY SECRETARY STUART E. EIZENSTAT,

                          DEFENSE DEPARTMENT;

              UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY WALTER SLOCOMBE;

         AND STATE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY THOMAS

    PICKERING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
    We are submitting this joint testimony as envisaged by the 
letters of Deputy Secretary Eizenstat of April 12 to Committee 
Chairman Hyde and Subcommittee Chairman Smith in response to 
letters to Secretary Summers and Secretary Albright from 
Chairman Hyde, inviting them or their designees to testify 
before this subcommittee on April 13 concerning H.R. 3485, the 
``Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.'' Deputy Secretary 
Eizenstat has worked extensively on this issue for the 
Administration over the past 18 months, and we, on behalf of 
our Departments, join him in presenting our views on this 
proposed legislation. We share your goal that U.S. victims of 
terrorism and their families receive justice and compensation 
for their suffering. We are actively engaged with the Congress 
in ongoing discussions to resolve the complex issues identified 
and to address the needs of victims of terrorism. We also 
appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement into the 
record.
    Let us begin by expressing the Administration's and our own 
genuine and personal sympathy to victims of international 
terrorism--an evil that this administration has led the world 
in combating. It is the responsibility of the United States 
Government to do everything possible to protect American lives 
from international terrorism and other heinous acts. People 
like Mr. Flatow, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Cicippio, Mr. Jacobsen, and 
Mr. Reed and their families, and the families of the Brothers 
to the Rescue pilots, deserve support in their goal of finding 
fair and just compensation for their grievous losses and 
unimaginable experiences. Those of us who have met with them 
have been touched by their suffering and impressed with their 
strength and determination to seek justice. We understand their 
frustrations and the frustrations that have led the sponsors of 
this legislation to introduce it. We are dedicated to working 
with the Congress to achieve the goal of obtaining compensation 
for the victims and their families. But we feel strongly that 
this must be done in a way that is consistent with the broad 
national interests and international obligations of the United 
States.
    It is obvious that the states involved here--states that we 
have publicly branded as sponsors of terrorism--do not view the 
United States as a friendly environment in which to conduct 
financial transactions. As part of our efforts to combat 
terrorism, we impose a wide range of economic sanctions against 
state sponsors of terrorism in order to deprive them of the 
resources to fund acts of terrorism and to affect their 
conduct. Because of these measures, terrorism list states 
engage in minimal economic activity in the United States. In 
many cases, the only assets that states which sponsor terrorism 
have in the United States are either blocked or diplomatic 
property. Such property should not be available for attachment 
and execution of judgments, for very good reasons involving the 
interests of the entire nation, which are described in detail 
below. As much as we join the sponsors of this bill in desiring 
to have victims of international terrorism and the heinous acts 
of the Cuban Air Force compensated, it would be unwise to 
ignore these reasons and prejudice the interests of all our 
citizens for this purpose.
    This question is complex and fraught with difficulties. For 
this reason, last year, we proposed, among other things, that a 
commission be established to review all aspects of the problems 
presented by acts of international terrorism. Such a commission 
would have specifically studied the issue of compensation with 
the goal of recommending proposals to the President and to the 
Congress to help the victims and their families receive 
compensation in a manner that would not impinge upon important 
U.S. national interests. While this proposal was not taken up, 
we believe this approach still has merit.
    H.R. 3485, though born of good intentions, is fundamentally 
flawed. The legislation would have five principal negative 
effects, all of which would be seriously damaging to important 
U.S. interests, and would, at the end of the day, result in 
substantial U.S. taxpayer liability.
    First, blocking of assets of terrorist states is one of the 
most significant economic sanctions tools available to the 
President. The proposed legislation would undermine the 
President's ability to combat international terrorism and other 
threats to national security by permitting the wholesale 
attachment of blocked property, thereby depleting the pool of 
blocked assets and depriving the U.S. of a source of leverage 
in ongoing and future sanctions programs, such as was used to 
gain the release of our citizens held hostage in Iran in 1981 
or in gaining information about POW's and MIA's as part of the 
normalization process with Vietnam.
    Second, it would cause the U.S. to violate its 
international treaty obligations to protect and respect the 
immunity of diplomatic and consular property of other nations, 
and would put our own diplomatic and consular property around 
the world at risk of copycat attachment, with all that such 
implies for the ability of the United States to conduct 
diplomatic and consular relations and protect personnel and 
facilities.
    Third, it would create a race to the courthouse benefitting 
one small, though deserving, group of Americans over a far 
larger group of deserving Americans. For example, in the case 
of Cuba, many Americans have waited decades to be compensated 
for both the loss of property and the loss of the lives of 
their loved ones. This would leave no assets for their claims 
and others that may follow. Even with regard to current 
judgment holders, it would result in their competing for the 
same limited pool of assets, which would be exhausted very 
quickly and might not be sufficient to satisfy all judgments.
    Fourth, it would breach the longstanding principle that the 
United States Government has sovereign immunity from 
attachment, thereby preventing the U.S. Government from making 
good on its debts and international obligations and potentially 
causing the U.S. taxpayer to incur substantial financial 
liability, rather than achieving the stated goal of forcing 
Iran to bear the burden of paying these judgments. The 
Congressional Budget Office (``CBO'') has recognized this by 
scoring the legislation at $420 million, the bulk of which is 
associated with the Foreign Military Sales (``FMS'') Trust 
Fund. Such a waiver of sovereign immunity would expose the 
Trust Fund to writs of attachment, which would inject an 
unprecedented and major element of uncertainty and 
unreliability into the FMS program by creating an exception to 
the processes and principles under which the program operates.
    Fifth, it would direct courts to ignore the separate legal 
status of states and their agencies and instrumentalities, 
overturning Supreme Court precedent and basic principles of 
corporate law and international practice by making state 
majority owned corporations liable for the debts of the state 
and establishing a dangerous precedent for government-owned 
enterprises like the U.S. Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation (``OPIC''). As the Washington Post observed in a 
fall 1999 editorial, ``Victims of terrorism certainly should be 
compensated, but a mechanism that permits individual recovery 
to take precedence over significant foreign policy interests is 
flawed.'' The proposed legislation would indeed seriously 
compromise important national security, foreign policy, and 
other clear national interests, and discriminate among and 
between past and future U.S. claimants.
    For all these reasons, explained in more detail below, the 
Administration strongly opposes the proposed legislation.
(1) Attachment of Blocked and Diplomatic Property and the Elimination 
        of the Effectiveness of Our Blocking Programs
    The Administration has grave concerns with the provisions 
of the proposed legislation that seek to nullify the 
President's waiver of the 1998 FSIA amendments and thereby 
permit attachment of blocked and diplomatic property. The 
ability to block assets represents one of the primary tools 
available to the United States to deter aggression and 
discourage or end hostile actions against U.S. citizens abroad. 
Our efforts to combat threats to our national security posed by 
terrorism list countries such as Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and Sudan 
rely in significant part upon our ability to block the assets 
of those countries.
    Blocking assets permits the United States to deprive those 
countries of resources that they could use to harm our 
interests, and to disrupt their ability to carry out 
international financial transactions. By placing the assets of 
such countries in the sole control of the President, blocking 
programs permit the President at anytime to withhold 
substantial benefits from countries whose conduct we abhor, and 
to offer a potential incentive to such countries to reform 
their conduct. Our blocking programs thus provide the United 
States with a unique and flexible form of leverage over 
countries that engage in threatening conduct.
    The Congress has recognized the need for the President to 
be able to regulate the assets of foreign states to meet 
threats to the U.S. national security, foreign policy, and 
economy. In both the International Emergency Economic Powers 
Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Congress has 
provided the President with statutory authority for regulating 
foreign assets. On the basis of this authority and foreign 
policy powers under the Constitution, Presidents have blocked 
property and interests in property of foreign states and 
foreign nationals that today amount to over $3.5billion.
    The Supreme Court has also recognized the importance of the 
President's blocking authority, stating that such blocking 
orders ``permit the President to maintain the foreign assets at 
his disposal for use in negotiating the resolution of a 
declared national emergency. The frozen assets serve as a 
`bargaining chip' to be used by the President when dealing with 
a hostile country.'' Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 673 
(1981).
    The leverage provided by blocked assets has proved central 
to our ability to protect important U.S. national security and 
foreign policy interests. The most striking example is the Iran 
Hostage Crisis. The critical bargaining chip the United States 
had to bring to the table in an effort to resolve the crisis 
was the almost $10 billion in Iranian Government assets that 
the President had blocked shortly after the taking of our 
embassy. Because the return of the blocked assets was one of 
Iran's principal conditions for the release of the hostages, we 
would not have been able to secure the safe release of the 
hostages and to settle thousands of claims of U.S. nationals if 
those blocked assets had not been available. This settlement 
with Iran also resulted in the eventual payment of $7.5 billion 
in claims to or for the benefit of U.S. nationals against Iran.
    In the case of Vietnam, the leverage provided by 
approximately $350 million in blocked assets, combined with 
Vietnam's inability to gain access to U.S. technology and 
trade, played an important role in persuading Vietnam's 
leadership to address important U.S. concerns in the 
normalization process. These concerns included assistance in 
accounting for POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam War, accepting 
responsibility for over $200 million in U.S. claims which had 
been adjudicated by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
and moderating Vietnamese actions in Cambodia.
    In addition, blocked assets have helped us to secure 
equitable settlements of claims of U.S. nationals against such 
countries as Romania, Bulgaria, and Cambodia in the context of 
normalization of relations. These results could not have been 
achieved without effective blocking programs.
    However, our blocking programs simply cannot function, and 
cannot serve to protect these important interests, if blocked 
assets are subject to attachment and execution by private 
parties, as the proposed legislation would permit. The need to 
deal with the increasing demands for information on assets, 
blocked and unblocked, of these terrorism list governments as 
monetary judgments are awarded would seriously disrupt the 
operations of the treasury Department in administering the 
blocking programs. These demands would greatly impair 
Treasury's investigative functions through the release of 
deliberative process and enforcement related materials thereby 
divulging sensitive operational details and raising important 
issues of confidentiality with U.S. banks and others who 
provide information on assets. Additionally, the ability to use 
blocked assets as leverage against foreign states that threaten 
U.S. interest is essentially eliminated if the President is 
unable to preserve and control the disposition of such assets. 
Private rights of execution against blocked assets would 
permanently rob the President of the leverage blocking provides 
by depleting the pool of blocked assets.
    In the Cuban and Iranian contexts, for example, the value 
of judgments (including both compensatory and punitive damages) 
won by the Brothers to the Rescue families exceeds the total 
known value of the blocked assets of Cuba in the United States, 
and the value of the judgment won by the Flatow family, or the 
former Beirut Hostages, exceeds the total known value of the 
blocked assets of the Government of Iran in the United States. 
Attachment of these blocked assets to satisfy private judgments 
in these and similar cases would leave no remaining assets of 
terrorism list governments in the President's control, denying 
the President an important source of leverage and seriously 
weakening his hand in dealing with threats to our national 
security.
    In addition, the prospect of future attachments by private 
parties would place a perpetual cloud over the President's 
ongoing control of all blocked assets programs. This would 
further undermine the President's ability to use such assets as 
leverage in negotiations, even where attachments had not yet 
occurred.
    Put simply, permitting attachment of blocked assets would 
likely seriously undermine the use of our blocking programs as 
a key tool for combating threats against our national security 
and, in the Iranian context, would not even achieve the goal of 
full payment of the compensatory damages of all existing 
judgments against Iran.
(2) Our Obligation and Interest in Protecting Diplomatic Property
    The proposed legislation also could cause the United States 
to violate our obligations under international law to protect 
diplomatic and consular property, and would undermine the legal 
protections for such property on which we rely every day to 
protect the safety of our diplomatic and consular property and 
personnel abroad. Even though the current legislation arguably 
provides protection for a slightly broader range of diplomatic 
property than previous legislative proposals, it is still 
fundamentally flawed in its failure to permit the President to 
protect properties, including consular properties, some 
diplomatic bank accounts, diplomatic residences, and properties 
of foreign missions to international organizations, which 
international law obligates us to protect.
    The United States' legal obligation to prevent the 
attachment of diplomatic and consular property could not be 
clearer. Protection of diplomatic property is required by the 
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which the United 
States and all of the states against which suits presently may 
be brought under the 1996 amendments to the FSIA are parties. 
Under Article 45 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
Relations we are obligated to protect the premises of 
diplomatic missions, together with their real and personal 
property and archives, of countries with which we have severed 
diplomatic relations or are in armed conflict. This would 
include diplomatic residences owned by the foreign state.
    Likewise, under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations, the same protection is required for 
consular premises, property, and archives. Attachment of any of 
the types of property covered by the Vienna Conventions on 
Diplomatic and Consular Relations could place the United States 
in violation of our obligations under international law.
    The proposed legislation would only permit the President to 
ensure the protection of a narrow portion of the property 
covered by the Vienna Conventions, and would thereby place the 
United States in violation of our legal obligations. In 
addition, the proposed legislation as drafted could cause us to 
breach our obligations to ensure the inviolability of missions 
to the United Nations, pursuant to the UN Headquarters 
Agreement and the General Convention on Privileges and 
Immunities.
    Our national interest in the protection of diplomatic 
property could not be clearer or more important. [Italic for 
emphasis] The United States owns over 3,000 buildings and other 
structures abroad that it uses as embassies, consulates, 
missions to international organizations, and residences for our 
diplomats. The total value of this property is between $12 and 
$15 billion.
    Because we have more diplomatic property and personnel 
abroad than any other country, we are more at risk than any 
other country if the protections for diplomatic and consular 
property are eroded. [Italic for emphasis] If we flout our 
obligations to protect the diplomatic and consular property of 
other countries, then we can expect other countries to target 
our diplomatic property when they disagree strongly with our 
policies or actions. Defending our national interests abroad at 
times makes the United States unpopular with some foreign 
governments. We should not give those states who wish the 
United States ill an easy means to strike at us by declaring 
diplomatic property fair game.
    In the specific case of Iran, attachment of Iran's 
diplomatic and consular properties could also result in 
substantial U.S. taxpayer liability. Iran's diplomatic and 
consular properties in the United States are the subject of a 
claim brought by Iran against the United States before the Iran 
U.S. Claims Tribunal. The Iran U.S. Claims Tribunal is an 
arbitration court located at The Hague in the Netherlands. It 
was established as part of the agreement between Iran and the 
United States that freed the U.S. hostages in Iran and resolved 
outstanding claims that were then pending between the United 
States and Iran. Pursuant to this agreement and awards of the 
Tribunal, Iran has paid $7.5 billion in compensation to or for 
the benefit of U.S. nationals. The Tribunal also has 
jurisdiction over certain claims between the two governments.
    Although we are contesting Iran's claim vigorously, the 
Tribunal could find that the United States should have 
transferred Iran's diplomatic and consular property to it in 
1981. If it does so and the properties are not available 
because they have been liquidated to pay private judgments, the 
U.S. taxpayer would have to bear the cost of compensating Iran 
for the value of the properties. Under the Algiers Accords, 
Tribunal awards against the governments are enforceable in the 
courts of any country, under the laws of that country.
(3) Equity Among Claimants
    We are also deeply concerned that the proposed legislation 
would frustrate equity among U.S. nationals with claims against 
terrorism list states. It would create a winner take all race 
to the courthouse, arbitrarily permitting recovery for the 
first, or first few, claimants from limited available assets, 
leaving other similarly situated claimants with no recovery at 
all. In fact, it wouldtake away assets potentially available to 
them.
    However, the Alejandre, Flatow, and Anderson cases do not 
represent the only claims of U.S. nationals against Cuba and 
Iran. No other claimants would benefit at all from the proposed 
legislation; indeed this legislation would seriously prejudice 
their interests.
    In the case of Cuba, the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission (``FCSC'') has certified 5,911 claims of U.S. 
nationals against the Government of Cuba, totaling 
approximately $6 billion with interest, dating back to the 
early 1960's. Contrary to statements made at the April 13 
hearing, these include not just expropriation claims, but also 
the wrongful death claims of family members of two individuals 
whom the Cuban Government executed after summary trial for 
alleged crimes against the Cuban state. Other claims relate to 
the Castro Government's seizure of homes and businesses from 
U.S. nationals. These claimants have waited over 35 years 
without receiving compensation for their losses. This bill will 
not help them at all.
    The same situation applies with respect to Iran. In 
addition to the Flatow and Anderson plaintiffs, who have 
judgments for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $589 
million, former hostages who were held captive in Lebanon--
David Jacobsen, Joseph Cicippio, Frank Reed, and their 
families--collectively have won a judgment against Iran 
totaling $65 million. Additional suits against Iran are 
currently pending in the Federal District courts.
    Moreover, given the nature of these regimes, it remains 
possible that in spite of our substantial efforts to combat 
terrorism, foreign terrorist states will commit future acts in 
violation of the rights of U.S. nationals, which may give rise 
to claims against them. If such incidents occur, these 
claimants will also have an interest in being compensated.
    Against this background, in which outstanding judgments for 
compensatory and substantial punitive damages far exceed 
available funds, the proposed legislation would permit the 
first claimants to reach the courthouse to deplete all the 
available assets of terrorism list governments, leaving nothing 
for other similarly situated claimants to satisfy even 
compensatory damages they are awarded. Satisfaction of the 
judgments in the Alejandre, Flatow, and Anderson cases would 
come at the expense of all other claimants against Cuba and 
Iran, both past and future.
    In sum, permitting the attachment of blocked and diplomatic 
properties in individual cases, as the proposed legislation 
would do, would undermine our ability to combat threats to our 
national security, violate our obligations under international 
law, place our diplomatic and consular properties and personnel 
abroad at risk, and lead to arbitrary inequities in the 
treatment of similarly situated U.S. nationals with claims 
against foreign governments.
(4) Breaching the Sovereign Immunity of the United States
    We are equally concerned about the provision of the 
proposed legislation that would permit garnishment of debts of 
the United States. Not only would this provision breach the 
long established principle that the United States Government 
has sovereign immunity from garnishment actions, it would 
seriously undermine our Foreign Military Sales program, which 
is an important tool supporting U.S. national security policy 
and strategy, by creating an exception to the processes and 
principles under which the program operates that has not 
existed in the program's 40year history.
    By allowing plaintiffs to attempt to tap the FMS Trust Fund 
to satisfy their judgments, the entire FMS program would be 
jeopardized as foreign customers question whether funds they 
are required to pay under the FMS program might be at risk of 
diversion or attachment. H.R. 3485 would therefore inject a 
major element of uncertainty and unreliability into the FMS 
program.
    Additionally, foreign governments make prepayments into the 
FMS Trust Fund to ensure payment of U.S. suppliers for products 
and services provided to foreign governments in USG approved 
sales of defense products and services. Under section 37 of the 
Arms Export Control Act, these funds are available solely for 
payments to U.S. suppliers, and for refunds to foreign 
purchasers in connection with such sales. If the FMS Trust Fund 
can be exposed to attachment through an act of Congress for 
purposes other than ensuring payment for arms sales, not only 
may foreign governments simply question the wisdom of engaging 
in such transactions with the United States, but payments to 
U.S. suppliers would be threatened.
    The proposed legislation also will negatively affect our 
defense industrial base. If passed as currently written, not 
only will U.S. defense firms be uncertain about whether and 
when they will be paid, but our ability to maintain open 
production lines needed to support the U.S. military, which the 
FMS program greatly facilitates, also would be disrupted.
    We have heard that the intent of the proposed legislation 
is to ``make terrorist states pay.'' However, exposing the 
Iranian FMS Trust Fund account (``Iran FMS account'') to 
attachment will not cause Iran to pay. Here too, at the end of 
the day, the U.S. taxpayer will bear this burden if this fund 
is tapped. The United States will have to pay Iran whatever 
amount in the Iran FMS account is held by the Iran U.S. Claims 
Tribunal to be owed to Iran. The current balance of the Iran 
FMS account, which is approximately$400 million, is the subject 
of Iran's multibillion dollar claim against the United States 
before the Tribunal, arising out of the Iran FMS program. 
Depleting Iran's FMS account through attachment by the 
plaintiffs in no way discharges any obligation to Iran the U.S. 
Government may ultimately be determined to have by the 
Tribunal. And if Iran prevails on its claims, it can seek to 
enforce its award against U.S. property anywhere in the world, 
since the awards of the Iran U.S. Claims Tribunal are 
enforceable in the courts of any country. Any Tribunal award 
that cannot be satisfied from the Iranian FMS account will have 
to be satisfied with U.S. government funds. Thus American 
taxpayers, rather than Iran, would actually pay under H.R. 
3485. CBO's cost estimate for the bill has been confirmed that 
the legislation would cost the Treasury, and hence the 
taxpayer, $420 million, most of which is associated with the 
FMS Trust Fund.
    This provision is also of particular concern because it 
would prevent the United States from meeting its obligations to 
make payments in satisfaction of awards the Tribunal renders 
against the United States. Instead, the proposed legislation 
would permit private parties to garnish the funds of the U.S. 
Government in order to collect such payments before they reach 
Iran. Even without this change in the law, there have been 
efforts in the Flatow case to garnish the payment of a $6 
million Tribunal award in Iran's favor. It is important to 
understand that allowing private litigants to garnish amounts 
we owe Iran under Tribunal awards would not discharge the U.S. 
Government's liability to Iran to pay such money. For example, 
if the efforts in the Flatow case had succeeded, the Flatow 
family would have received $6 million, but the United States 
still would have owed Iran $6 million under the unpaid award. 
And again because the awards of the Iran U.S. Claims Tribunal 
are enforceable in the courts of any country, Iran can seek to 
enforce awards against U.S. property in other countries if we 
do not pay them voluntarily. [Italic for emphasis]
    Permitting garnishment of the payment of such awards could 
thus result in the U.S. taxpayer paying twice: once when a 
private claimant garnishes the payment, and a second time upon 
Iran's successful enforcement of the still unsatisfied award 
against us abroad. Because the judgments against Iran received 
by these plaintiffs total in the hundreds of millions of 
dollars, permitting garnishment of debts owed by the United 
States to Iran as a means of satisfying these judgments could 
cost the U.S. taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Finally, while we are vigorously contesting all of Iran's 
claims at the Tribunal, if we are unable to pay even the 
smallest awards against us, our position before the Tribunal in 
all other claims will clearly be undermined.
(5) Eliminating Legal Separateness of Agencies and Instrumentalities
    There are also significant problems with the provision of 
the proposed legislation that would change the way the FSIA 
defines a foreign state's agencies and majority owned or 
controlled instrumentalities for terrorism list countries where 
there is a terrorism related judgment against it. This 
provision would overturn the Congress's own considered judgment 
when it passed the FSIA in1976, as well as existing Supreme 
Court case law and basic principles of corporate and 
international law. In addition, it would prejudice the 
interests of U.S. citizens and corporations who invest abroad.
    This provision would make corporations that are majority 
owned or controlled by a terrorism list foreign government 
liable for terrorism related judgments awarded against that 
government. The Congress recognized the danger of this position 
when it passed the FSIA in 1976. The Conference Report to that 
bill observed that ``[i]f U.S. law did not respect the separate 
juridical identities of different agencies or 
instrumentalities, it might encourage foreign jurisdictions to 
disregard the juridical divisions between different U.S. 
corporations or between a U.S. corporation and its independent 
subsidiary.''
    We are concerned that this proposal to disregard separate 
legal personality, although limited in the bill to terrorism 
list states and their majority owned entities, could create the 
perception that the United States is unreliable as a location 
for banking or investment. Especially for companies with 
linkages to foreign governments, such a provision could be 
viewed as an expansion of U.S. economic sanctions. It could 
raise concerns about the United States as a safe financial 
center and about the likelihood of possible legal actions 
against their assets in the United States. This perception 
could undermine the competitive ability of U.S. financial firms 
to lead privatizations abroad and to attract banking business 
and investments to the United States.
    In addition, if the United States were to ``pierce the 
corporate veil'' in this manner, there could well be similar 
actions in foreign countries. Foreign countries may enact 
similar changes to their law or foreign courts might disregard 
the separate status of private, U.S. owned companies in cases 
where a litigant had a judgment against the U.S. Government.
    Compared to the billions of dollars the United States 
Government and private U.S. interests have invested abroad, the 
blocked assets of terrorism list state entities, agencies, and 
instrumentalities located in the United States are small. In 
the case of Iran, we do not have a comprehensive picture of 
Iranian assets in the United States that might be affected by 
this proposed legislation. There is currently no blocking of 
Iranian assets in the United States (other than the residual of 
property blocked during the Hostage Crisis), and thus no 
obligation on the part of U.S. persons to report specific 
information on them.
    U.S. citizens, corporations, the United States Government, 
and taxpayers have far more money invested abroad than those of 
any other country, and thus have more to lose if investment 
protections such as those provided by the presumption of 
separate status is eroded. [Italic for emphasis] If we saddle 
the investors of other countries with the debts of foreign 
governments with which they are co-investors, as the proposed 
legislation would do, then we can expect U.S. investors and 
taxpayers to pay a considerably higher price when other 
governments follow our example.
    Finally, disregarding separate legal personality as 
provided for in this proposal could possibly lead to 
substantial U.S. taxpayer liability for takings claims in U.S. 
courts and possibly before international fora.
    We are grateful for this opportunity to address a very 
important subject involving the fight against terrorism, 
compensation for victims, and critical national interests. 
Unfortunately, however, the concerns raised here indicate that 
the 1996 amendment waiving sovereign immunity and creating a 
judicial cause of action for damages arising from acts of 
terrorism has not met its goals of providing compensation to 
victims and deterring terrorism. In fact, if blocked assets 
were exhausted to compensate the families, which would be the 
result of this bill, the leverage to affect the conduct of the 
terrorism list states would be lost along with the blocked 
assets. We are not happy that these suits have not led to 
recovery for families who have brought cases under the 1996 
amendment. A system that has to date left no recovery option 
other than one that conflicts with U.S. national interests and 
would result in substantial U.S. taxpayer liability is not an 
acceptable system.
    We have been giving this a very hard look and have been 
working with several Members of Congress to address this 
difficult problem. We are anxious to continue doing so. 
Together, we hope to formulate immediate and longer term 
approaches that will address the concerns--of compensation for 
terrorist acts and the U.S. national interests and 
international obligations--that we all share in a much more 
satisfactory way. Most importantly, we believe that, for a 
workable and effective solution, we need a careful and 
deliberative review of the issues, informed by our experience 
since the1996 amendment.
    As mentioned earlier, we suggested last year that the 
Administration and Congress commit to a joint commission to 
review all aspects of the problem, and to recommend to the 
President and the Congress proposals to find ways to help these 
families receive compensation, in a way consistent with our 
overall national interests and international obligations. We 
believe that this is the best way to deal with these issues and 
that it therefore merits further consideration. We believe that 
such a commission should be one of stature and with the right 
expertise to confront all the hard issues we have discussed 
today--including the lack of effective remedies in these cases 
because of sanctions against terrorism list countries under 
U.S. law, which are absolutely necessary to maintain.
    A fundamental principle for this joint commission--by 
definition--would be the need to inventory outstanding claims 
and develop an effective and fair mechanism for compensation of 
victims of terrorism. The commission should be encouraged to 
think broadly, including consideration of avenues other than 
the judicial one created by the 1996 amendment.
    We hope discussions on the Commission and the broader issue 
of compensation for victims of terrorism will yield a solution 
that best addresses all parties' respective interests. Again, 
we are committed to working together with you, members of this 
Subcommittee, and others to find nonlegislative and legislative 
means to achieve our shared goal of fair and just compensation 
for victims of terrorism.

                                   Robert C. Scott.
          Additional Views of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee

    I was gratified to participate in the bi-partisan effort 
that led to a unanimous vote of the full House Committee on the 
Judiciary to favorably report H.R. 2975, the PATRIOT Act of 
2001 to the full House for floor consideration. However, I 
would like to share my additional views on this bill since some 
of the issues that are of paramount concern to me were not 
addressed at the mark-up.
    I am concerned that although there is language in the bill 
that allocates $50 Million for technology to improve security 
along the Northern Border, that there was no language in the 
bill that specifically made clear what it is the Congress is 
trying to do.
    The most effective way to prevent the admission of 
terrorists is to develop the ability to identify them and deny 
them access, ideally at the visa post and as a last resort at 
the port of entry. There should be language that enhances 
technology for security and enforcement at the northern border, 
such as infrared technology and technology that enhances 
coordination between the Governments of Canada and the United 
States generally and specifically between Canadian police and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    The best enforcement strategy should be a regional one that 
will ultimately focus key screening efforts at the two 
countries' external borders through the use of joint 
intelligence and harmonized lookouts.
    If each of the law enforcement agencies work together: the 
D.E.A., the U.S. Customs Service, the INS, the Department of 
Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), this will 
be an effective way of increasing public safety than spending 
billions of dollars (in infrastructure costs alone) to develop 
an entry-exit control system that offers no added enforcement 
value.
    Secondly, while we in the Congress want to eliminate all 
forms of terrorism, and give law enforcement officers the 
appropriate tools to accomplish this goal, it is vitally 
necessary that it be done in a fair, thoughtful and equitable 
manner without violating the basic tenants of our democratic 
principles; which are freedom, due process, and civil rights.
    It is imperative that we eliminate as well as prevent all 
forms of targeting by law enforcement officers along the border 
and throughout the United States interior that could solely be 
based on race, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual orientation. 
Therefore, it is imperative that the Civil Rights Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a study for the 
collection and reporting of nationwide data on traffic stops 
along the borders and throughout the United States.
    Last April, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 
Border Patrol Agents may not consider an individual's 
``Hispanic appearance'' as a fact deciding whether to stop 
motorists for questions near the U.S.-Mexico border. The Court 
held that, ``Stops based on race or ethnic appearance send the 
underlying message to all our citizens that those who are not 
white are judged by the color of their skin alone . . . that 
they are in effect assumed to be potential criminals first and 
individuals second. While the Court has spoken, it is time that 
the Congress get involved in this issue.
    Lastly, another issue that is of paramount concern to me is 
the issue of Hate Crimes. The PATRIOT bill should contain 
language that establishes enhanced penalties for persons who 
commit acts of violence against other persons because of the 
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person.
    A perpetrator who willfully commits a crime motivated by 
hate shall be imprisoned a minimum of 10 years or fined, or 
both; or imprisoned up to life and fined, or both, if the crime 
results in death, kidnaping, or aggravated sexual abuse, or an 
attempt of any of these crimes.
    Hate crimes are not new; they have been around for as long 
as civilizations have existed.
    Today, we know that hate crimes still exist and that they 
are not like any other type of crime. They are committed only 
because the victim is different from the victimizer.
    On September 11, 2001, United States citizens were brutally 
terrorized in New York City and Washington, D.C. But the 
effects rippled across our entire nation and beyond. Thousands 
of lives perished as a result of these unthinkable terrorist 
acts allegedly carried out by members of the extremist Islamic 
group led by Osama bin Laden.
    The backlash of these attacks has put American against 
American. Murders and attacks against citizens resembling 
Middle Easterners have occurred. Innocent people died because 
they looked like the Islamic extremists allegedly responsible 
for the September 11th tragedies.
    Personal attacks based on religion and appearances 
represent the kind of oppression that Americans have opposed 
all around the world.
    Now, more than ever, we need legislation to punish crimes 
motivated by hate against ethnicity, religion, and gender. 
These crimes cannot be tolerated. It is our responsibility as 
elected lawmakers to ensure that our citizens are able to live 
their lives without fear of how they look, who they worship, 
and who they love.
    The strength of our country lies in the differences of its 
citizens. We must work together to make stronger anti-hate 
crime laws in order to preserve our values of freedom and 
tolerance.

                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
            Additional Views of the Honorable Maxine Waters

    I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee spoke in support 
of my amendment to H.R. 2975 that will provide authorization 
for funds to compensate the 12 U.S. citizens who were victims 
of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania. Osama bin Laden was indicted in those bombings, but 
those victims have never received compensation for the level of 
pain and suffering they have endured. The amendment will 
authorize the appropriation of $1.5 million for each victim of 
those bombings, for a total of $18 million. The amount 
requested was based on the compensation we provided to the 1999 
victims of the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
Serbia, which was also $1.5 million per victim.
    As we are considering a bill to deal with terrorism and its 
effects, it is very appropriate that the bill direct funding to 
compensate previous terrorism victims who have not yet received 
any compensation. I am heartened that the Committee agreed to 
develop language to include in H.R. 2975 that will provide that 
compensation.
    I continue to have concerns about several aspects of H.R. 
2975 that threaten to erode our civil liberties. However, I 
believe that we have improved the bill dramatically from the 
one that was originally presented to Congress 2 weeks ago.

                                   Maxine Waters.

                                  

```