9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act

9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) the Committee on Rules, the Departments of Justice and Transportation, the Subcommittee on Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the many others who are supporting me in this initiative.

Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the September 11th attacks, as well as the recent bombing of four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, the need for stronger criminal laws to deal with terrorists and other violence has never been stronger. Intelligence reports last spring indicate that some terrorists might try to bomb U.S. rail lines or buses in major U.S. cities. We have also heard reports of so-called "dirty bombs" that can be easily transported over our extensive mass transportation system.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have to remind anyone in this body of the potential loss of life and disruption to our economy and way of life from this modern new threat.

In order to help meet this threat head on, I have introduced an amendment that revises, enhances, and consolidates two Federal criminal law statutes into one comprehensive statute in order to deter and more effectively punish terrorist acts against railroad carriers and other mass transportation providers.

Specifically, under current Federal criminal law, terrorist acts against railroad carriers are prosecuted under the so-called "Wrecking Trains" statute which was enacted in 1940. This statute is in many ways outdated, full of gaps and inconsistencies, and quite literally inadequately addresses modern threats like radioactive materials or biological agents.

Additionally, the September 11 attacks on our homeland gave rise to the creation of another Federal criminal statute which covers terrorist acts against mass transportation systems. By combining these two statutes to cover all forms of transportation and railway carriers, we can introduce more consistency, predictability, and effectiveness into Federal prosecutorial powers.

First, it would reduce our criminal law's vulnerability to bogus legal claims and also prevent prosecutors from having to prosecute for lesser offenses because of discrepancies or gaps in the current law. Richard Reid, known as the Shoe Bomber, was actually able to have a charge against him dismissed because the new mass transportation statute did not explicitly define an airplane as a vehicle for purposes of prosecuting under the statute. My amendment will prevent oversights like this from happening.

Secondly, my amendment will bring more consistent and uniform protections to all modes of railroad carriers and mass transportation providers.

Third, my amendment will expand the jurisdictional reach of criminal law to cover more offenses, such as the release of biological agents or radioactive material, and cover more property if the prohibited conduct affects interstate commerce or travel, or communicating, or transporting prohibited materials across State lines.

Fourth, my amendment will make capital punishment an option under aggravating circumstances that involve terrorist acts that result in the death of a person. If our jurisdictional system is unable to have this tool at their disposal in order to meet the new threats that terrorism has brought upon us, then we will lose a critical opportunity to deter and prevent more terrorism from happening.

And fifth, my amendment protects all law enforcement, railroad carriers, and mass transportation providers from criminal liability if they are performing their duties in the course of lawful and authorized activities. In other words, my amendment protects conduct that should be protected, but does not protect conduct that should not be protected such as terrorist or imposters posing as rail or mass transportation employees.

Mr. Chairman, overall, Congress has taken dramatic steps in the last 3 years to improve our security here and abroad, but there is more work to be accomplished. I strongly urge passage of this amendment to H.R. 10.

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

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I would like to say that in working through this amendment, we did work with the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We are also trying to reform an act here, the 1940 Wrecking Trains statute, that is sorely outdated and full of gaps. When it was conceived, there was no conception of a terrorist bombing on mass transportation. I think we know, obviously from the events in Spain, that that is a very real possibility in terms of acts of terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to not only pull that 1940s Wrecking Train statute into the modern era, but also to combine it with other mass transportation sections so that not only the deterrent but the prosecutorial powers are available to our prosecutors to be able to use the most stringent and severe punishments that could possibly be available to try to use as a deterrent to terrorism.

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

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mrs. CAPITO. I think there is a lot of prosecutorial discretion in the bill, and I think that would probably be left up to the prosecutor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I would say again, you have mandatory minimums in the bill which would not give anybody any flexibility, and if a conspiracy attempt and threat are subject to the same mandatory minimums as actually completing the crime, that would be something that we would want to consider. It is just not clear.

If the gentlewoman wants time to respond, I will give her time.

Mrs. CAPITO. In terms of the death penalty, I think that is definitely at the discretion of the prosecutor, and there are two sets of offenses there. One is a 20-year and one is a 30-year minimum, and I think that is also at the discretion of the prosecutors. That is my understanding.