USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005

USA PATRIOT AND TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 21, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with the comments made by the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and to thank my colleague from California for the amendment, and just note that as I read through it and agreed with this, and I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, it occurs to me that there are a few other items that perhaps should have been included, and I am hopeful that the committee might, we do not have a sunset, but we might actually spend some time scrubbing the code and making sure that we have scooped them all up in an appropriate way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, many of us, when we think about terrorism, feel exactly the way the proponent of the amendment does, that we want to exert maximum force against the offender. Those who would kill deserve to pay the ultimate price.

On the other hand, I am aware that there are people in our country and in our Congress who for religious reasons do not believe in the death penalty. The Pope did not believe in the death penalty and, obviously, he was not for terrorism any more than our religious colleagues who have that objection are for terrorism. So I think it is important to state that.

I also want to say I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I have been for 10 years. If there was a hearing in the subcommittee that I am not a member of all well and good, but I think this amendment poses some new things that the full committee would benefit from going through. The reduced number of jurors that is being proposed, the procedural changes that are quite new, I think, deserve the attention of the full committees. It is possible that this measure could run into constitutional problems. And I think we would be better served to sort through that in a thorough way than to expose these elements of the PATRIOT Act to court challenge.

Finally, I would just say as I said before, even though we seek, understandably, retribution against those who would do these horrible crimes, I am just skeptical that imposing the death penalty is going to deter the suicide bombers. Really, what we need to do is to spend the time and the money to take steps to protect ourselves in a more thorough way than we have done since 9/11.

As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely aware, and we are on both sides of the aisle, I can tell you of the shortfallings that we have in our protection against terrorism.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, having just seen this amendment for the first time today, there are questions that are raised. I understand what the intent is, and perhaps if this passes we can clarify this in a conference committee; but I wonder about the liabilities of the banking industry that acts innocently to help immigrants transmit funds home.

The banks in California have been encouraged to regularize the remittance program. We talk sometimes about illegal immigration, and that is not anything that any of us approve of; but it is not the same as terrorism, and it is also not the same as those immigrants. It is also a financial services industry.

I do wish we could have heard from the financial services industry on this point because certainly it deserves some clarification. Maybe it does not do what has been suggested. We have had some communications from those who are concerned it does. But I do want to raise that on behalf of the California banking industry that has really stepped up to avoid the fraud and crime that has occurred with remittances before they did.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, here is my question. Section 208 of the Social Security Act apparently states it is illegal to use a false Social Security number for activities to obtain employment.

If I am a 14-year-old kid and I go out and make up a Social Security number so I can get a job and pretend I am 18, and I get money for it, have I violated section 208? And if so, if I deal with a bank, is the bank falling afoul of this terrorism statute?

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov