My column on problems with the bill:
http://news.com.com/Patriot+Act+redux/2010-1071_3-5414087.html
---
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman
_______________________________________
www.house.gov/judiciary
News Advisory
For immediate release Contact: Jeff
Lungren/Terry Shawn
October 20, 2004 202-225-2492
Sensenbrenner Statement at 9/11 Conference Committee Meeting
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House and Senate conferees met today to reconcile
differences between the House- and Senate-passed bills based on the work
of the 9/11 Commission. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) delivered the following remarks at today's
meeting:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All of us are privileged to be
members of this important conference. We have the opportunity - and the
obligation - to transform the wisdom of the 9-11 Commission into
legislation that will make all Americans safer. History will judge us
poorly if we miss that opportunity.
The report of the 9-11 Commission contains a compelling
analysis of how and why 9-11 happened and how we can ensure that it
never happens again. The Commission's staff report on "9-11 and
Terrorist Travel" does the same. In these hundreds of pages, it was
dispiriting to read repeatedly how dysfunctions in the way government
operated before 9-11 facilitated the terrorists' plans. But it was
heartening to read of all the ways we can make government work better to
thwart the plans of future terrorists.
This is particularly true when we read of how terrorists
exploited weaknesses in our immigration system. The 9/11 Commission
stated that "routine operations of our immigration laws - that is,
aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against
terrorism - inevitably shaped al Qaeda's planning and opportunities."
The Center for Immigration Studies, in tracking how 48 foreign-born
militant Islamic terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers, entered the
U.S., found that:
[The terrorists] used almost every conceivable means of
entering the country. They have come as students, tourists, and
business visitors. They have also been [legal permanent residents] and
naturalized U.S. citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally,
arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been
granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used America's humanitarian
tradition of welcoming those seeking asylum.
We must plug these gaps.
Let me give you some real life examples. One of the provisions
that has been most criticized is the expedited removal provision. DHS
already has the discretion to use this power, but it has not done so.
People show up at the U.S. border without documents, make meritless
asylum claims, are released into the community pending a hearing, and
are never heard from again. In real life, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer was
able to stay in the U.S. despite being apprehended three times for
illegal entries along the Canadian border. He later became known as the
"Brooklyn Bomber" for his plan to blow up the Atlantic Avenue subway in
Brooklyn. Unfortunately, he did not disclose that plan when he was
apprehended at the border.
Some have criticized the effort to allow immigration judges to
make reasonable credibility determinations when judging asylum claims.
These are the same kinds of credibility determinations that judges and
juries make every day in this country and on which people are sent to
jail every day.
In real life, some of the unsavory characters who have abused
the asylum system include: Mir Aimal Kansi, who murdered two CIA
employees at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in 1993; Ramzi Yousef
who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack; and the blind
sheik, Umar Abd ar-Rahman who plotted to bomb New York City landmarks.
None of these people disclosed their plans in their asylum claims.
Or let us consider the Western hemisphere exception. D.C.
sniper John Muhammad made a living by forging and selling low-quality
U.S. driver's licenses and birth certificates which he then used to
smuggle aliens into the U.S. He was able to do this because the Western
Hemisphere exception led to the acceptance of these low quality
documents at the U.S. border. These are just a few examples of the
things that we are trying to stop with these provisions. They are not
extraneous - they are vital.
In addition, there are gaps in the criminal law enforcement
system. H.R. 10 closes those gaps in the following manner, it: provides
for the death penalty for terrorists who cause death; prohibits material
support for terrorists; imposes stiff criminal penalties for possession
of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction; protects against
attacks on mass transportation facilities; assures effective information
sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement; requires
pretrial detention and lifetime supervision for terrorists, prohibits
terrorist hoaxes which drain limited resources from first responders;
and provides for investigative tools for terrorists who act alone.
These are effective and common-sense measures which are an essential
component of any responsible Congressional action in light of the 9-11
Commission recommendations.
I know that some have criticized the criminal law provisions in
Title II of the House bill and the border security provisions in Title
III of the House bill. I strongly believe that we must not be deterred
by the well-intentioned belief expressed by some that these ideas in the
House bill are too "controversial" to be enacted. How could we face
grieving families in the future and tell them that while we might have
done more, the legislative hurdles were just too high?
Do we really want to say that it was too hard to prevent
terrorists from boarding airliners or entering federal buildings using
insecure foreign ID cards? Do we really want to say that it was too
hard to prevent alien terrorists, murderers and rapists from being
released into our communities to prey on Americans? Do we really want
to say that it was too hard to prevent courts from granting asylum to
terrorists? Do we really want to say that it was too hard to keep
aliens who attend terrorist training camps or give money to terrorist
groups from entering the United States? Do we really want to say that it
was too hard to be able to deport members of terrorist organizations
living among us?
Likewise, on the criminal side, do we really want to say that
terrorists who cause deaths do not deserve the death penalty? Do we
really want to say that we did not do all we could to track down "lone
wolf" terrorists? Do we really want to say that we did not do all we
could to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction or rockets that can
be fired at airplanes?
Some say that these ideas can be enacted at some time in the
future, date unspecified. Our years of legislative experience tell us
that now is the time to enact these necessary reforms. These provisions
are common sense responses to the 9-11 Commission and the ever changing
threat we face. We do not have the luxury to wait a year to address
these vital reforms, as some suggest. We need to be comprehensive and
unafraid.
Now is the hour of decision - this conference is the time to
act. Let us hope and pray that it does not take a further act of terror
against our nation to get this done.
#####
ACLU Says Lawmakers Must Listen to 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Families;
Final Measure Must Not Include Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Privacy Provisions
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Contact: Shin Inouye
(202) 675-2312
WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today called upon key
lawmakers to listen to the 9/11 Commission and exclude extraneous
anti-immigration and law enforcement provisions as the conference
committee to reconcile the differences of the House and Senate
intelligence reform bills met.
Following hours of speeches highlighting the importance of
bipartisanship, the chairman of the conference committee, Rep. Peter
Hoekstra (R-MI) announced that the Republican House Leadership would
draft a bill to be considered by the conferees. That proposal was
quickly denounced by lawmakers from both chambers, and it was agreed
that Hoekstra, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) would draft the initial bill.
"The House Republicans once again sought to put politics over
principle," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington
Legislative Office. "They started off by saying they wanted a
bipartisan bill, but then attempted to push their own agenda. If not
for the fair-minded lawmakers who raised serious objections, the
American people could have been left behind. Now it up to all the
conferees to act - cautiously and carefully."
"Whatever form this bill takes, it should adhere to the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission," Murphy added. "This conference is not the
place to have the debate on the Patriot Act expansion and anti-immigrant
provisions of the House bill, especially with a national election just
13 days away."
In a letter sent to conferees by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair
and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, they stated that "we believe
strongly that this bill is not the right occasion for tackling
controversial immigration and law enforcement issues that go well beyond
the Commission's recommendations."
This was a sentiment echoed by several members of families of 9/11
victims in a press conference held before the conference committee met.
The various measures have prompted opposition from advocacy groups
including the ACLU, Gun Owners of America, the National Council of La
Raza, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the
conservative Cuban American National Foundation. The ACLU and the CANF
sent a letter to the conferees today, asking them to remove the
anti-immigrant provisions.
"It is ironic that the party of limited government would use the
restructuring of our intelligence community as stealth cover to expand
law enforcement powers and assault immigrants," Murphy said. "Worse
still, if House leaders have their way, important protections for civil
liberties would be undermined."
For more on the ACLU's concerns with Congress's implementation of the
9/11 Commission's findings, go to:
<http://www.aclu.org/intelligencereform>
****
> Shin Inouye
> Legislative Media Liaison
> ACLU Washington Legislative Office
> tel: 202-675-2312 (Press Line)
> Help protect your civil liberties - http://www.aclu.org
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 22:56:46 PDT