[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2493-S2529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Kempthorne):
  S. 383. A bill to provide for the establishment of policy on the 
deployment by the United States of an antiballistic missile system and 
of advanced theater missile defense systems; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.


                 BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE LEGISLATION

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would establish as U.S. policy the goal of developing and 
deploying as soon as practical defenses to defend the American people 
and our forces overseas against ballistic missile attack. This bill is 
identical to a provision recently passed by the House National Security 
Committee, which will soon be considered by the full House of 
Representatives.
  The administration has proposed a ballistic missile defense program 
that focuses almost exclusively on theater missile defense. While I 
strongly support a robust theater program, as reflected in this bill, I 
believe that the administration's program is not well balanced.
  It is my belief that the administration has failed to put together an 
adequate national missile defense program to defend the American people 
against the emerging threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles. 
Today, the United States faces ballistic missile threats, but has no 
defense. In the future, there will be more countries which will be able 
to pose such threats to our country. Therefore, we must begin today to 
plan for the creation of a highly effective national defense that 
initially will be able to defend against a limited ballistic missile 
attack.
  In the coming months, the Senate Armed Services Committee will be 
examining a wide range of options for a national missile defense 
system. Our decisions will become apparent in the fiscal year 1996 
defense authorization bill. The purpose of the bill I am introducing 
today, is to establish a general policy and to require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a plan for developing and deploying a national 
missile defense system.
  I would like to thank Senator Kyl for his work in this area and for 
being a principal cosponsor of this bill. A number of my colleagues 
from the Armed Services Committee are also joining me in introducing 
this important legislation, and I thank them all for their support and 
hard work on this issue.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Thurmond and other 
Senate Armed Services Committee members, I am introducing the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Revitalization Act of 1995, for the purpose of 
requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop for deployment, at the 
earliest practical date, national and theater ballistic missile defense 
systems. The companion legislation, section 201 of H.R. 7, has passed 
the House National Security Committee and will soon be voted on by the 
full House.
  I am submitting this legislation in an effort to get the Pentagon's 
current ballistic missile defense program back on track. Currently, and 
in the forseeable future, the United States continues to be woefully 
unprepared to cope with the threat of ballistic missile attack. This 
must end; and the bill I have introduced today will help end our 
vulnerability.
  Twelve years ago during his State of the Union Address, former 
President Ronald Reagan posed a simple challenge to America's 
scientific community: Find a way to make ballistic missiles impotent 
and obsolete. Because, he asked, ``Is it not better to save lives than 
to avenge them?'' With those words, President Reagan chartered one of 
the most important and controversial defense programs of the modern 
age--the strategic defense initiative.
  Through the years the SDI program was pushed and pulled in many 
different directions by both the Congress and administration. No push, 
however, equalled the shove the Clinton administration gave the program 
in 1993. With the elimination of key ballistic missile defense 
programs, the United States is now almost exclusively focused on 
theater ballistic missile defenses which, hopefully, will be able to 
defend our troops deployed overseas. But, this limited protection comes 
at the expense of the development and deployment of national missile 
defenses.
  Focusing only on theater defenses and the threat that is here and 
now, the administration completely ignores analysis from our Nation's 
best intelligence experts about the potential future threat to the 
continental United States.
  Intelligence experts have repeatedly warned that terrorism is on the 
rise, that the quest for nuclear weapons in the Third World has not 
subsided, and that Russian nuclear materials have shown up on the black 
market. But, the administration has failed to heed those warnings.
  Even the headlines lay bare the future vulnerability faced by the 
American people.
  The Washington Times recently carried the headline ``Yeltsin Can't 
Curtail Arms Spread.''
  A Clinton administration official recently stated, ``The out-of-
control weapons of mass destruction industries in Russia are the No. 1 
national security issue facing the United States.''
  China has sold to Saudi Arabia the CSS-2, a medium-range missile 
capable of reaching any place in Europe.
  Iran is desperately shopping the blackmarket for the technology to 
develop nuclear weapons, and Russia wants to sell to Iran.
  The threat is real. As former Director of the CIA, Bob Gates, said, 
``History is not over. It was merely frozen and is now thawing with a 
vengeance.''
  The CIA claims that 25 nations could acquire chemical, biological, 
and nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. That's 20 more than we 
have today. And, potentially, 20 nations that are lead by despots who 
see it as their duty to annihilate the United States. One of those 
leaders could be Abul Abbas, head of the Palestinian Liberation Front, 
who promised revenge on the United States for attacking Iraq. He said, 
``Revenge takes 40 years. If not my son then the son of my son will 
kill you. Someday we will have missiles that can reach New York.''
  In day-to-day terms, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
among the Third World and the lack of defenses against those weapons 
could radically alter the manner in which the United States carries out 
its foreign policy. Would we have deployed 15,000 troops in Haiti if 
General Cedras had a weapon of mass destruction and a missile that 
could reach Florida? Probably not. Would America stand up for human 
rights and democracy in a starving nation if warlords had stolen 
nuclear weapons from Russia? Probably not. Would the Persian Gulf war 
have been fought if Hussein had succeeded in his quest, and acquired a 
deliverable nuclear weapon? Probably not.
  The world will be dramatically different in the 21st century. We 
cannot predict the future. We don't know who will do it or when it will 
happen. But, it will happen. Some day, someone, somewhere will launch a 
ballistic missile at the United States.
  When the warning comes, most Americans will believe that we will be 
able to defend ourselves. We can't. When the codes to launch a nuclear 
ballistic missile are entered and the keys are turned, there is no way 
to prevent the missile from reaching its target.
  We cannot intercept it. We cannot interfere with its guidance system. 
We cannot make it self-destruct. There is nothing we can do to stop 
even one single missile from reaching the United States of America. 
Nothing.
  The Clinton administration won't change the situation either. In 
fact, it's getting worse. The Clinton administration and congressional 
opponents have destroyed any future strategic capability to defend the 
United States and are on their way to destroying potential theater 
defenses as well.
  This is being done by their decision to clarify the ABM Treaty to 
define 
[[Page S2494]] our next theater defense missile as an illegal missile. 
The ABM Treaty, recall, was signed in 1972 by Leonid Brezhnev and 
Richard Nixon. It shouldn't have been endorsed in 1972, and it 
shouldn't be reendorsed in 1995, 23 years later. It most certainly 
should not be redefined.
  The threat has changed. Technology has improved. And the Soviet Union 
doesn't even exist. But, the Clinton team insists on deliberately 
drawing a distinction between strategic and theater ballistic missiles, 
something that was left undefined in 1972.
  What the administration's negotiators have accomplished is not only 
to negotiate away strategic systems--which came as no surprise--but, 
also to negotiate away the only advanced theater systems in research 
and development in the United States. The Clinton administration has 
done this by arbitrarily placing speed limits on interceptors. If an 
interceptor breaks 3km/sec, it is defined as a strategic ABM 
interceptor and would not be deployable as a theater missile under the 
new terms of the ABM Treaty. Key theater defense systems, including 
THAAD and Navy Upper Tier, have capabilities beyond 3km/sec. and, thus, 
could not be further developed as designed.
  Over the last 2 years, the opponents have won significant budget cuts 
in ballistic missile defenses and have succeeded in canceling all 
space-based options. This is especially disturbing because space-based 
sensors and interceptors are critical to the success of any global 
strategic defense system. They provide worldwide, instanteous detection 
of and protection against missiles launched from anywhere in the world, 
and are both cheaper and more effective than their ground-based 
counterparts.
  During Operation Desert Shield, it took the United States 6 months 
and 400 airlifts to put in place the Patriot interceptors that were 
used to shoot down some of the Iraqi Scuds. With space-based 
interceptors, coverage would be instanteous. Yet, all systems capable 
of accomplishing that mission have been zeroed. Zeroed, because using 
space for military purposes is politically unpopular.
  This narrowmindedness and refusal to view space for what it is--the 
high frontier, boundless in opportunity--will have serious consequences 
for our future military successes. Like earlier forays into the air and 
the sea, the use of space will change the course of warfare. It's 
already happening. The United States should not deny itself that 
capability.
  The Ballistic Missile Defense Revitalization Act restores the focus 
of the BMD program to development and deployment of defenses capable of 
protecting a theater as well as the continental United States. This is 
an important step in establishing a firm basis for a national response 
to the growing threat from Third World ballistic missiles.
  In closing, I will note that 12 years of ballistic missile defense 
research has produced a series of successes. There is no longer any 
doubt that defense against ballistic missiles is feasible. It is my 
hope that the next few years of ballistic missile defense research will 
achieve President Reagan's original goal--to make nuclear weapons 
impotent and obsolete. The moral imperative is, as President Reagan 
said, that it is better to save lives than to avenge them.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 386. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the tax-free treatment of education savings accounts established 
through certain State programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                       THE TRUST FUND SAVINGS ACT

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that will 
help Americans defray the costs of a college education. For many, the 
dream of a college education can never be fulfilled simply because they 
can not meet the skyrocketing costs. I am sure all of my colleagues 
will agree that this Nation's future success is dependent on the 
education of our children today.
  Mr. President, the facts are clear. Education costs are outpacing 
average wages and this has created a barrier to attending college. 
Throughout the 1980's education costs have risen 8 percent per year. At 
this pace, an average tuition bill of $5,000 will be $11,700 in the 
year 2000. In 1994, the average tuition in America rose by 6 percent. 
It was also the smallest since 1989 according to the College Board.
  In Kentucky last year tuition rocketed 11.2 percent at the University 
of Kentucky and the University of Louisville. For other regional 
schools, students and parents only saw their costs rise by 5.3 percent. 
The largest increase, however, was felt by the students attending 
community colleges where costs rose 14.3 percent.
  As tuition continues to increase, so does the need for assistance. In 
1990, over 56 percent of all students accepted some form of financial 
assistance. The statistic was even higher for minority students. Also 
on the rise are need-based scholarships and grants. In Kentucky, 
between 1984 and 1992, need-based scholarships rose by 160 percent.
  It is increasingly common for students to study now and pay later. In 
fact, more students than ever are forced to bear the additional loan 
costs in order to receive an education. Between 1993 and 1994 Federal 
loan volume rose by 57 percent from the previous year. On top of that, 
students have increased the size of their loan burden by an average of 
28 percent. So, not only are more students taking out loans, but they 
are taking out bigger loans as well. Next May at graduation time, 
nearly half the graduates will hit the pavement with their diplomas and 
stack of loan repayment books.
  I believe that we need to reverse this trend by boosting savings and 
to help parents meet the education needs of their children. The bill I 
am introducing today, will make changes to the Tax Code maximizing the 
scope and the investment in State-sponsored education savings plans.
  This legislation will permit parents to contribute up to $3,000 
annually in after-tax dollars to a State-sponsored plan. Also this 
amount will be indexed to match the annual growth in education costs. 
The real benefit of this program will allow earnings to accumulate tax-
free when used to meet educaiton costs. Any earnings not used for 
educational purposes will be taxed at the students individual rate. I 
believe this will provide a significant benefit to families and 
correct, at least in this instance, the unfair tax discrimination 
toward savings.
  For those States that have established programs, whether they are 
prepared, savings or bond programs this legislation will provide tax-
exempt status to those organizations that administer these programs. In 
November 1994, the U.S. Appeals Court in Cincinnati ruled that the 
Michigan Education Trust is not subject to Federal income tax. This 
language would also remove any misunderstanding regarding the taxation 
of these investments.
  This tax designation will serve two purposes. Once, it will send a 
clear message regarding each organization's mission to help families 
finance a child's education. Second, it will reduce the administrative 
expenses, thus increasing the investment in education.
  Mr. President, this is not another unfunded mandate. This legislation 
merely provides States with an option to invest in their most important 
resource, their children. I am confident that following the passage of 
this legislation more and more States will seek to establish similar 
programs to stimulate both education savings and reduce the need for 
State assistance in the future.
  Lastly, this bill would make corporate and individual endowments to 
the trust fund exempt from Federal taxation when distributed among 
participants. This will allow corporations to help finance the 
education of our Nation's future leaders.
  This legislation is not a funding cure but is a serious effort to 
encourage long-term savings. Participants don't have to be rich to 
participate. In fact, the average monthly contribution in Kentucky is 
just $47.22. This program will reward an individuals long term 
investment in education.
  The alternative funding option is to continue in our futile attempt 
to outpace the rising cost of education through subsidies and aid. More 
that likely this would exacerbate the dollar chase driving costs even 
higher. I am confident, that my legislation will take the burden off 
the Federal and State government to subsidize students.
  [[Page S2495]] I hope my colleagues will join me in creating this 
viable and affordable means of helping families provide for their 
children's higher education. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 386

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF STATE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by 
     redesignating section 137 as section 138 and by adding after 
     section 136 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 137. EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--Gross income shall not include any 
     qualified education savings account distribution.
       ``(b) Qualified Education Savings Account Distribution.--
     For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified education savings 
     account distribution' means any amount paid or distributed 
     out of an education savings account which would otherwise be 
     includible in gross income to the extent such payment or 
     distribution is used exclusively to pay qualified higher 
     education expenses incurred by the designated beneficiary of 
     the account.
       ``(2) Rollovers.--The term `qualified education savings 
     account distribution' includes any transfer from an education 
     savings account of one designated beneficiary to another such 
     account of such beneficiary or to such an account of another 
     designated beneficiary.
       ``(3) Special rules.--The determination under paragraph (1) 
     as to whether an amount is otherwise includible in gross 
     income shall be made in the manner described in section 72, 
     except that--
       ``(A) all education savings accounts shall be treated as 
     one contract,
       ``(B) all distributions during any taxable year shall be 
     treated as one distribution,
       ``(C) contributions to an account described in subsection 
     (c)(4)(B)(i) shall not be included in the investment in the 
     contract with respect to the account, and
       ``(D) the value of the contract, income on the contract, 
     and investment in the contract shall be computed as of the 
     close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.
       ``(c) Education Savings Account.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `education savings account' 
     means a trust created or organized in the United States--
       ``(A) pursuant to a qualified State educational savings 
     plan, and
       ``(B) exclusively for the purpose of paying the qualified 
     higher education expenses of the designated beneficiary of 
     the account.
       ``(2) Qualified state educational savings plan.--The term 
     `qualified State educational savings plan' means a plan 
     established and maintained by a State or instrumentality 
     thereof under which--
       ``(A) participants may save to meet qualified higher 
     education expenses of designated beneficiaries,
       ``(B) planning and financial information is provided to 
     participants about current and projected qualified higher 
     education expenses,
       ``(C) education savings account statements are provided to 
     participants at least quarterly, and
       ``(D) an audited financial statement is provided to 
     participants at least annually.
       ``(3) Qualified higher education expenses.--The term 
     `qualified higher education expenses' means the cost of 
     attendance (as defined in section 472 of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965).
       ``(4) Limitations.--A trust shall not be treated as an 
     education savings account unless the following requirements 
     are met:
       ``(A) No contribution will be accepted unless it is in 
     cash, stocks, bonds, or other securities which are readily 
     tradable on an established securities market.
       ``(B) Contributions will not be accepted for any taxable 
     year in excess of the applicable limit. The preceding 
     sentence shall not apply to--
       ``(i) contributions to the qualified State educational 
     savings plan which are allocated to all education savings 
     accounts within the class for which the contribution was 
     made, or
       ``(ii) rollover contributions described in subsection 
     (b)(2).
       ``(C) The trust may not be established for the benefit of 
     more than one individual.
       ``(D) The trustee is the qualified State educational 
     savings plan or person designated by it.
       ``(E) The assets of the trust may be invested only in 
     accordance with the qualified State educational savings plan.
       ``(5) Applicable limit.--For purposes of paragraph (4)(B)--
       ``(A) In general.--The applicable limit is $3,000.
       ``(B) Indexing.--In the case of taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1995, the $3,000 amount under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased by the education cost-of-living 
     adjustment for the calendar year in which the taxable year 
     begins.
       ``(C) Education cost-of-living adjustment.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (B), the education cost-of-living adjustment for 
     any calendar year is the percentage (if any) by which--
       ``(i) the higher education cost index for the preceding 
     calendar year, exceeds
       ``(ii) such index for 1994.
       ``(D) Higher education cost index.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (C), the higher education cost index for any 
     calendar year is the average qualified higher education 
     expenses for undergraduate students at both private and 
     public institutions of higher education for the 12-month 
     period ending on August 31 of the calendar year. The 
     Secretary of Education shall provide for the computation and 
     publication of the higher education cost index.
       ``(d) Tax Treatment of Accounts and State Plans.--
       ``(1) Exemption from tax.--An education savings account 
     shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle. 
     Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any such account or 
     plan shall be subject to the taxes imposed by section 511 
     (relating to imposition of tax on unrelated business income 
     of charitable, etc. organizations).
       ``(2) Loss of exemption of account where individual engages 
     in prohibited transaction.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the designated beneficiary of an 
     education savings account is established or any individual 
     who contributes to such account engages in any transaction 
     prohibited by section 4975 with respect to the account, the 
     account shall cease to be an education savings account as of 
     the first day of the taxable year (of the individual so 
     engaging in such transaction) during which such transaction 
     occurs.
       ``(B) Account treated as distributing all its assets.--In 
     any case in which any account ceases to be an education 
     savings account by reason of subparagraph (A) as of the first 
     day of any taxable year, an amount equal to the fair market 
     value of all assets in the account shall be treated as having 
     been distributed on such first day.
       ``(3) Effect of pledging account as security.--If, during 
     any taxable year, the individual for whose benefit an 
     education savings account is established, or any individual 
     who contributes to such account, uses the account or any 
     portion thereof as security for a loan, the portion so used 
     shall be treated as distributed to the individual so using 
     such portion.
       ``(e) Reports.--The Secretary may require the trustee of an 
     education savings account to make reports regarding such 
     account to the Secretary, to the individual who has 
     established the account, and to the designated beneficiary of 
     the account with respect to contributions, distributions, and 
     such other matters as the Secretary may require. The reports 
     required by this subsection shall be filed at such time and 
     in such manner and furnished to such individuals at such time 
     and in such manner as may be required by those regulations.''
       (b) Tax Treatment of Qualified State Educational Savings 
     Plan.--
       (1) Treatment as section 501(c)(3) organization.--Section 
     501(c)(3) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or which is 
     a qualified State educational savings plan (as defined in 
     section 137(c)(2)),'' after ``animals,''.
       (2) Charitable contributions.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 170(c)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``, or which is a qualified State 
     educational savings plan (as defined in section 137(c)(2)),'' 
     after ``animals''.
       (B) Section 170(b)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vii), by inserting 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (viii) and by inserting after 
     clause (viii) the following new clause:
       ``(ix) a qualified State educational savings plan (as 
     defined in section 137(c)(2)).''
       (c) Contribution Not Subject to Gift Tax.--Section 2503 of 
     such Code (relating to taxable gifts) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Education Savings Accounts.--Any contribution made by 
     an individual to an education savings account described in 
     section 137 shall not be treated as a transfer of property by 
     gift for purposes of this chapter.''
       (d) Tax on Prohibited Transactions.--Section 4975 of such 
     Code (relating to prohibited transactions) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Special rule for education savings accounts.--An 
     individual for whose benefit an education savings account is 
     established and any contributor to such account shall be 
     exempt from the tax imposed by this section with respect to 
     any transaction concerning such account (which would 
     otherwise be taxable under this section) if, with respect to 
     such transaction, the account ceases to be an education 
     savings account by reason of the application of section 
     137(d)(2)(A) to such account.'', and
       (2) by inserting ``, an education savings account described 
     in section 137(c),'' in subsection (e)(1) after ``described 
     in section 408(a)''.
       (e) Failure To Provide Reports on Education Savings 
     Accounts.--Section 6693 of such Code (relating to failure to 
     provide reports on individual retirement accounts or 
     annuities) is amended--
     [[Page S2496]]   (1) by inserting ``or on education savings 
     accounts'' after ``annuities'' in the heading of such 
     section, and
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new sentence: ``Any person required by section 137(e) to file 
     a report regarding an education savings account who fails to 
     file the report at the time or in the manner required by such 
     section shall pay a penalty of $50 for each failure, unless 
     it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause.''
       (f) Special Rule for Determining Amounts of Support for 
     Dependent.--Subsection (b) of section 152 of such Code 
     (relating to definition of dependent) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7) and by inserting 
     after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) A distribution from an education savings account 
     described in section 137(c) to the individual for whose 
     benefit such account has been established shall not be taken 
     into account in determining support for purposes of this 
     section to the extent such distribution is excluded from 
     gross income of such individual under section 137.''
       (g) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking out the item 
     relating to section 137 and inserting the following new 
     items:

``Sec. 137. Education savings accounts.
``Sec. 138. Cross references to other Acts.''

       (2) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 68 of 
     such Code is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 6693 and inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 6693. Failure to provide reports on individual retirement 
              accounts or annuities or on education savings accounts.''

       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1994.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 387. A bill to encourage enhanced State and Federal efforts to 
reduce traffic deaths and injuries and improve traffic safety among 
young, old, and high-risk drivers; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                   the high-risk drivers act of 1995

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the High-Risk Drivers 
Act. Senator Danforth and I worked very hard on this legislation in the 
last Congress and I hope it can be passed quickly this year.
  This is indeed a most appropriate time for introduction and swift 
passage.
  While we have made significant progress in reducing death and injury 
on America's highways, it is time to build on that success and focus 
Federal resources on those areas which will produce the highest return 
on safety for each dollar invested. At this time of scrutiny for all 
Federal spending, the high-risk drivers bill gives taxpayers a great 
value.
  Three groups of drivers need special attention in our continuing 
efforts to make the Nation's highways safer. They are young drivers, 
high-risk drivers or repeat offenders and older drivers.
  This legislation encourages the States and the Federal Government to 
focus attention on all three groups. Even with the great need to reduce 
the Federal budget deficit, this is one area where we must recognize 
and take action on the fact that a small investment will yield 
significant returns. When I chaired a hearing on this important 
legislation last year, one expert testified that if this legislation 
were enacted, there would be at least a tenfold return on investment 
due to reduced costs of death, injury, and loss of productivity.
  Of course, no economist can measure the cost of the sorrow, pain, and 
suffering incurred by parents, friends, and families of those killed 
and injured in traffic accidents. No economist can measure the value of 
relief parents feel each and every time their young sons and daughters 
return home safely.
  Even with the long-term decline in traffic fatality rates, too many 
lose their lives in traffic accidents. In 1993, according to the 
National Safety Council, over 42,000 Americans died in auto crashes. 
That's like losing a city the size of Grand Island, NE and its 
surrounding area.
  This legislation focuses attention where it is most needed to reduce 
the carnage on America's highways.
  Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers. 
Teen drivers comprise 7.4 percent of the U.S. population but are 
involved in 15.4 percent of the fatal motor vehicle crashes. The simple 
problem is that it takes a great deal of experience, judgment, and 
maturity to master the operation of a vehicle. Unfortunately, many 
young drivers are not getting the training they need to master the safe 
operation of automobiles. In addition, the temptations and pressures 
faced by today's teenagers sometimes run counter to the skills and the 
values needed to safely operate a motor vehicle. The high-risk drivers 
bill attempts to temper those temptations and impulses by putting at 
risk what many teens value the most, their driver's license, or, in the 
vernacular, their ``wheels.''
  The High-Risk Drivers Act encourages States through incentive grants 
to conduct youth-oriented traffic-safety enforcement, education, and 
training programs, and to adopt a graduated license system where a full 
unrestricted license is not obtained until a young driver has had a 
clean driving record for at least 1 year.
  The bill focuses heavy attention on drinking and driving. States are 
encouraged to adopt a zero tolerance policy for underage drinking and 
driving by adopting, as the State of Nebraska has, a blood alcohol 
threshold level of .02 percent for drivers
 under the age of 21. In addition, the bill encourages States to adopt 
a minimum $500 fine for anyone who sells alcohol to minors, a 6-month 
suspension for drivers under the age of 21 caught drinking and driving 
and a prohibition against open containers of alcohol inside 
automobiles.

  The high-risk drivers bill also attempts to get parents involved by 
providing them with information about the effect that at-fault 
accidents and traffic violations have on young drivers insurance rates 
before any tragic and expensive accidents occur.
  The second focus area of this legislation is on repeat offenders and 
high-risk drivers. This section of the bill uses incentive grants to 
encourage States to maintain better records of serious drivers 
offenses, to improve the sharing of driver information, and to 
establish remedial programs for young high-risk drivers.
  Perhaps most innovative and effective is an effort to encourage 
States to adopt vehicle confiscation schemes for repeat drunk drivers. 
This provision, with appropriate protection for family members, will 
help crack down on that hard core group of repeat offenders drunk 
drivers who so endanger every citizen, including themselves.
  This legislation also establishes an aggressive research agenda for 
older drivers. Our Nation's transportation policies must anticipate the 
mobility needs of the Nation's senior population. This include 
strategies which use technology and licensing plans which help older 
drivers keep their independence. I am pleased to report that the 
American Association of Retired Persons supports the older driver 
provisions of this act.
  Finally, this important legislation boosts the authorization level 
for the important Anti-Drunk Driving Enforcement Program known as the 
410 Program.
  This bill embraces the bipartisan compromise Senator Danforth and I 
crafted last year. Both the House and Senate voted for this legislation 
but the House-passed vehicle for this bill was blocked in the Senate 
during the closing hours of the last Congress for reasons unrelated to 
this important safety program.
  To put it another way, Mr. President, this measure has already passed 
both Houses of Congress and has agreed to, but, because of a 
technicality at the last minute, it failed to get passage.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that my own home State of Nebraska is 
seriously looking at a number of the proposals included in this and the 
original high risk-drivers bill Senator Danforth and I introduced in 
the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support swift passage of this 
important piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the articles outlining some of 
Nebraska's efforts and the text of the High-Risk Drivers Act of 1995 be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I would simply specify, Mr. President, if I might, the articles that 
I would like to have printed: ``Nebraska Leads in Drunken Driving 
Control,'' ``Panel Seeks Tougher DWI Law,'' and ``MADD Founder Faults 
Drunk-Driving Bill.''
  [[Page S2497]] There being no objection, the material was ordered to 
be printed in the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 387

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``High-risk Drivers Act of 
     1995''.

            TITLE I--HIGH-RISK AND ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVERS

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Nation's traffic fatality rate has declined from 
     5.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 1966 to 
     an historic low of an estimated 1.8 deaths per 100 million 
     vehicle miles traveled during 1992. In order to further this 
     desired trend, the safety programs and policies implemented 
     by the Department of Transportation must be continued, and at 
     the same time, the focus of these efforts as they pertain to 
     high risk drivers of all ages must be strengthened.
       (2) Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death 
     among teenagers, and teenage drivers tend to be at fault for 
     their fatal crashes more often than older drivers. Drivers 
     who are 16 to 20 years old comprised 7.4 percent of the 
     United States population in 1991 but were involved in 15.4 
     percent of fatal motor vehicle crashes. Also, on the basis of 
     crashes per 100,000 licensed drivers, young drivers are the 
     highest risk group of drivers.
       (3) During 1991, 6,630 teenagers from age 15 through 20 
     died in motor vehicle crashes. This tragic loss demands that 
     the Federal Government intensify its efforts to promote 
     highway safety among members of this high risk group.
       (4) The consumption of alcohol, speeding over allowable 
     limits or too fast for road conditions, inadequate use of 
     occupant restraints, and other high risk behaviors are 
     several of the key causes for this tragic loss of young 
     drivers and passengers. The Department of Transportation, 
     working cooperatively with the States, student groups, and 
     other organizations, must reinvigorate its current programs 
     and policies to address more effectively these pressing 
     problems of teenage drivers.
       (5) In 1991 individuals aged 70 years and older, who are 
     particularly susceptible to injury, were involved in 12 
     percent of all motor vehicle traffic crash fatalities. These 
     deaths accounted for 4,828 fatalities out of 41,462 total 
     traffic fatalities.
       (6) The number of older Americans who drive is expected to 
     increase dramatically during the next 30 years. 
     Unfortunately, during the last 15 years, the Department of 
     Transportation has supported an extremely limited program 
     concerning older drivers. Research on older driver behavior 
     and licensing has suffered from intermittent funding at 
     amounts that were insufficient to address the scope and 
     nature of the challenges ahead.
       (7) A major objective of United States transportation 
     policy must be to promote the mobility of older Americans 
     while at the same time ensuring public safety on our Nation's 
     highways. In order to accomplish these two objectives 
     simultaneously, the Department of Transportation must support 
     a vigorous and sustained program of research, technical 
     assistance, evaluation, and other appropriate activities that 
     are designed to reduce the fatality and crash rate of older 
     drivers who have identifiable risk characteristics.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) The term ``high risk driver'' means a motor vehicle 
     driver who belongs to a class of drivers that, based on 
     vehicle crash rates, fatality rates, traffic safety violation 
     rates, and other factors specified by the Secretary, presents 
     a risk of injury to the driver and other individuals that is 
     higher than the risk presented by the average driver.
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Transportation.

     SEC. 103. POLICY AND PROGRAM DIRECTION.

       (a) General Responsibility of Secretary.--The Secretary 
     shall develop and implement effective and comprehensive 
     policies and programs to promote safe driving behavior by 
     young drivers, older drivers, and repeat violators of traffic 
     safety regulations and laws.
       (b) Safety Promotion Activities.--The Secretary shall 
     promote or engage in activities that seek to ensure that--
       (1) cost effective and scientifically-based guidelines and 
     technologies for the nondiscriminatory evaluation and 
     licensing of high risk drivers are advanced;
       (2) model driver training, screening, licensing, control, 
     and evaluation programs are improved;
       (3) uniform or compatible State driver point systems and 
     other licensing and driver record information systems are 
     advanced as a means of identifying and initially evaluating 
     high risk drivers; and
       (4) driver training programs and the delivery of such 
     programs are advanced.
       (c) Driver Training Research.--The Secretary shall explore 
     the feasibility and advisability of using cost efficient 
     simulation and other technologies as a mans of enhancing 
     driver training; shall advance knowledge regarding the 
     perceptual, cognitive, and decision making
      skills needed for safe driving and to improve driver 
     training; and shall investigate the most effective means 
     of integrating licensing, training, and other techniques 
     for preparing novice drivers for the safe use of highway 
     systems.

                    TITLE II--YOUNG DRIVER PROGRAMS

     SEC. 201. STATE GRANTS FOR YOUNG DRIVER PROGRAMS.

       (a) Establishment of Grant Program.--Chapter 4 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 411. Programs for young drivers

       ``(a) General Authority.--Subject to the provisions of this 
     section, the Secretary shall make basic and supplemental 
     grants to those States which adopt and implement programs for 
     young drivers which include measures, described in this 
     section, to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from the 
     driving performance of young drivers. Such grants may only be 
     used by recipient States to implement and enforce such 
     measures.
       ``(b) Maintenance of Effort.--No grant may be made to a 
     State under this section in any fiscal year unless such State 
     enters into such agreements with the Secretary as the 
     Secretary may require to ensure that such State will maintain 
     its aggregate estimated expenditures from all other sources 
     for programs for young drivers at or above the average level 
     of such expenditures in its 2 fiscal years preceding the 
     fiscal year in which the High Risk Drivers Act of 1994 is 
     enacted.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--No State may receive grants under 
     this section in more than 5 fiscal years. The Federal share 
     payable for any grant under this section shall not exceed--
       ``(1) in the first fiscal year a State receives a grant 
     under this section, 75 percent of the cost of implementing 
     and enforcing in such fiscal year the young driver program 
     adopted by the State pursuant to subsection (a);
       ``(2) in the second fiscal year the State receives a grant 
     under this section, 50 percent of the cost of implementing 
     and enforcing in such fiscal year such program; and
       ``(3) in the third, fourth, and fifth fiscal years the 
     State receives a grant under this section, 25 percent of the 
     cost of implementing and enforcing in such fiscal year such 
     program.
       ``(d) Maximum Amount of Basic Grants.--Subject to 
     subsection (c), the amount of a basic grant made under this 
     section for any fiscal year to any State which is eligible 
     for such a grant under subsection (e) shall equal 30 percent 
     of the amount apportioned to such State for fiscal year 1989 
     under section 402 of this title. A grant to a State under 
     this section shall be in addition to the State's 
     apportionment under section 402, and basic grants during any 
     fiscal year may be proportionately reduced to accommodate an 
     applicable statutory obligation limitation for that fiscal 
     year.
       ``(e) Eligibility for Basic Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, a State is 
     eligible for a basic grant if such State--
       ``(A) establishes and maintains a graduated licensing 
     program for drivers under 18 years of age that meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(B)(i) in the first year of receiving grants under this 
     section, meets 3 of the 7 criteria specified in paragraph 
     (3);
       ``(ii) in the second year of receiving such grants, meets 4 
     of such criteria;
       ``(iii) in the third year of receiving such grants, meets 5 
     of such criteria;
       ``(iv) in the fourth year of receiving such grants, meets 6 
     of such criteria; and
       ``(v) in the fifth year of receiving such grants, meets 6 
     of such criteria.
       For purposes of subparagraph (B), a State shall be treated 
     as having met one of the requirements of paragraph (3) for 
     any year if the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that, for the 3 preceding years, the alcohol fatal 
     crash involvement rate for individuals under the age of 21 
     has declined in that State and the alcohol fatal crash 
     involvement rate for such individuals has been lower in that 
     State than the average such rate for all States.
       ``(2) Graduated Licensing Program.--
       ``(A) A State receiving a grant under this section shall 
     establish and maintain a graduated licensing program 
     consisting of the following licensing stages for any driver 
     under 18 years of age:
       ``(i) An instructional license, valid for a minimum period 
     determined by the Secretary, under which the licensee shall 
     not operate a motor vehicle unless accompanied in the front 
     passenger seat by the holder of a full driver's license.
       ``(ii) A provisional driver's license which shall not be 
     issued unless the driver has passed a written examination on 
     traffic safety and has passed a roadtest administered by the 
     driver licensing agency of the State.
       ``(iii) A full driver's license which shall not be issued 
     until the driver has held a provisional license for at least 
     1 year with a clean driving record.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), subsection 
     (f)(1), and subsection (f)(6)(B), a provisional licensee has 
     a clean driving record if the licensee--
       ``(i) has not been found, by civil or criminal process, to 
     have committed a moving traffic violation during the 
     applicable period;
       ``(ii) has not been assessed points against the license 
     because of safety violations during such period; and
       ``(iii) has satisfied such other requirements as the 
     Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall determine the conditions under 
     which a State shall suspend 
     [[Page S2498]] provisional driver's licenses in order to be 
     eligible for a basic grant. At a minimum, the holder of a 
     provisional license shall be subject to driver
      control actions that are stricter than those applicable to 
     the holder of a full driver's license, including warning 
     letters and suspension at a lower point threshold.
       ``(D) For a State's first 2 years of receiving a grant 
     under this section, the Secretary may waive the clean driving 
     record requirement of subparagraph (A)(iii) if the State 
     submits satisfactory evidence of its efforts to establish 
     such a requirement.
       ``(3) Criteria for basic grant.--The 7 criteria referred to 
     in paragraph (1)(B) are as follows:
       ``(A) The State requires that any driver under 21 years of 
     age with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or 
     greater when driving a motor vehicle shall be deemed to be 
     driving while intoxicated for the purpose of (i) 
     administrative or judicial sanctions or (ii) a law or 
     regulation that prohibits any individual under 21 years of 
     age with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 percent or 
     greater from driving a motor vehicle.
       ``(B) The State has a law or regulation that provides a 
     mandatory minimum penalty of at least $500 for anyone who in 
     violation of State law or regulation knowingly, or without 
     checking for proper identification, provides or sells alcohol 
     to any individual under 21 years of age.
       ``(C) The State requires that the license of a driver under 
     21 years of age be suspended for a period specified by the 
     State if such driver is convicted of the unlawful purchase or 
     public possession of alcohol. The period of suspension shall 
     be at least 6 months for a first conviction and at least 12 
     months for subsequent conviction; except that specific 
     license restrictions may be imposed as an alternative to such 
     minimum periods of suspension where necessary to avoid undue 
     hardship on any individual.
       ``(D) The State conducts youth-oriented traffic safety 
     enforcement activities, and education and training programs--
       ``(i) with the participation of judges and prosecutors, 
     that are designed to ensure enforcement of traffic safety 
     laws and regulations, including those that prohibit drivers 
     under 21 years of age from driving while intoxicated, 
     restrict the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and 
     establish other moving violations; and
       ``(ii) with the participation of student and youth groups, 
     that are designed to ensure compliance with such traffic 
     safety laws and regulations.
       ``(E) The State prohibits the possession of any open 
     alcoholic beverage container, or the consumption of any 
     alcoholic beverage, in the passenger area of any motor 
     vehicle located on a public highway or the right-of-way of a 
     public highway; except as allowed in the passenger area, by 
     persons (other than the driver), of a motor vehicle designed 
     to transport more than 10 passengers (including the driver) 
     while being used to provide charter transportation of 
     passengers.
       ``(F) The State provides, to a parent or legal guardian of 
     any provisional licensee, general information prepared with 
     the assistance of the insurance industry on the effect of 
     traffic safety convictions and at-fault accidents on 
     insurance rates for young drivers.
       ``(G) The State requires that a provisional driver's 
     license may be issued only to a driver who has satisfactorily 
     completed a State-accepted driver education and training 
     program that meets Department of Transportation guidelines 
     and includes information on the interaction of alcohol and 
     controlled substances and the effect of such interaction on 
     driver performance, and information on the importance of 
     motorcycle helmet use and safety belt use.
       ``(f) Supplemental Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Extended application of provisional license 
     requirement.--For purposes of this section, a State is 
     eligible for a supplemental grant for a fiscal year in an 
     amount, subject to subsection (c), not to exceed 10 percent 
     of the amount apportioned to such State for fiscal year 1989 
     under section 402 of this title if such State is eligible for 
     a basic grant and in addition such State requires that a 
     driver under 21 years of age shall not be issued a full 
     driver's license until the driver has held a provisional 
     license for at least 1 year with a clean driving record as 
     described in subsection (e)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Remedial driver education.--For purposes of this 
     section, a State is eligible for a supplemental grant for a 
     fiscal year in an amount, subject to subsection (c), not to 
     exceed 5 percent of the amount apportioned to such State for 
     fiscal year 1989 under section 402 of this title if such 
     State is eligible for a basic grant and in addition such 
     State requires, at a lower point threshold than for other 
     drivers, remedial driver improvement instruction for drivers 
     under 21 years of age and requires such remedial instruction 
     for any driver under 21 years of age who is convicted of 
     reckless driving, excessive speeding, driving under the 
     influence of alcohol, or driving while intoxicated.
       ``(3) Record of serious convictions; habitual or repeat 
     offender sanctions.--For purposes of this section, a State is 
     eligible for a supplemental grant for a fiscal year in an 
     amount, subject to subsection (c), not to exceed 5 percent of 
     the amount apportioned to such State for fiscal year 1989 
     under section 402 of this title if such State is eligible for 
     a basic grant and in addition such State--
       ``(A) requires that a notation of any serious traffic 
     safety conviction of a driver be maintained on the driver's 
     permanent traffic record for at least 10 years after the date 
     of the conviction; and
       ``(B) provides additional sanctions for any driver who, 
     following conviction of a serious traffic safety violation, 
     is convicted during the next 10 years of one or more 
     subsequent serious traffic safety violations.
       ``(4) Interstate driver license compact.--For purposes of 
     this section, a State is eligible for a supplemental grant 
     for a fiscal year in an amount, subject to subsection (c), 
     not to exceed 5 percent of the amount apportioned to such 
     State for fiscal year 1989 under section 402 of this title if 
     such State is a member of and substantially complies with the 
     interstate agreement known as the Driver License Compact, 
     promptly and reliably transmits and receives through 
     electronic means interstate driver record information 
     (including information on commercial drivers) in cooperation 
     with the Secretary and other States, and develops and 
     achieves demonstrable annual progress in implementing a plan 
     to ensure that (i) each court of the State report 
     expeditiously to the State driver licensing agency all 
     traffic safety convictions, license suspensions, license 
     revocations, or other license restrictions, and driver 
     improvement efforts sanctioned or ordered by the court, and 
     that (ii) such records be available electronically to 
     appropriate government officials (including enforcement, 
     officers, judges, and prosecutors) upon request at all times.
       ``(5) For purposes of this section, a State is eligible for 
     a supplemental grant for a fiscal year in an amount, subject 
     to subsection (c), not to exceed 5 percent of the amount 
     apportioned to such State for fiscal year 1989 under section 
     402 of this title if such State has a law or regulation that 
     provides a minimum penalty of at least $100 for anyone who in 
     violation of State law or regulation drives any vehicle 
     through, around, or under any crossing, gate, or barrier at a 
     railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or 
     being opened or closed.
       ``(6) Vehicle seizure program.--For purposes of this 
     section, a State is eligible for a supplemental grant for a 
     fiscal year in an amount, subject to subsection (c), not to 
     exceed 5 percent of the amount apportioned to such State for 
     fiscal year 1989 under section 402 of this title if such 
     State has a law or regulation that--
       ``(A) mandates seizure by the State or any political 
     subdivision thereof of any vehicle driven by an individual in 
     violation of an alcohol-related traffic safety law, if such 
     violator has been convicted on more than one occasion of an 
     alcohol-related traffic offense within any 5-year period 
     beginning after the date of enactment of this section, or has 
     been convicted of driving while his or her driver's license 
     is suspended or revoked by reason of a conviction for such an 
     offense;
       ``(B) mandates that the vehicle be forfeited to the State 
     or a political subdivision thereof if the vehicle was solely 
     owned by such violator at the time of the violation;
       ``(C) requires that the vehicle be returned to the owner if 
     the vehicle was a stolen vehicle at the time of the 
     violation; and
       ``(D) authorizes the vehicle to be released to a member of 
     such violator's family, the co-owner, or the owner, if the 
     vehicle was not a stolen vehicle and was not solely owned by 
     such violator at the time of the violation, and if the family 
     member, co-owner, or owner, prior to such release, executes a 
     binding agreement that the family member, co-owner, or owner 
     will not permit such violator to drive the vehicle and that 
     the vehicle shall be forfeited to the State or a political 
     subdivision thereof in the event such violator drives the 
     vehicle with the permission of the family member, co-owner, 
     or owner.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $9,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     $12,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, 
     $14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, 
     $16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
     and $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis of chapter 4 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     immediately after the item relating to section 410 the 
     following new item:

``411. Programs for young drivers.''.

       (c) Deadlines for Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary 
     shall issue and publish in the Federal Register proposed 
     regulations to implement section 411 of title 23, United 
     States Code (as added by this section), not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act. The final 
     regulations for such implementation shall be issued, 
     published in the Federal Register, and transmitted to 
     Congress not later than 12 months after such date of 
     enactment.

     SEC. 202. PROGRAM EVALUATION.

       (a) Evaluation by Secretary.--The Secretary shall, under 
     section 403 of title 23, United States Code, conduct an 
     evaluation of the effectiveness of State provisional driver's 
     licensing programs and the grant program authorized by 
     section 411 of title 23, United States Code (as added by 
     section 101 of this Act).
       (b) Report to Congress.--By January 1, 1997, the Secretary 
     shall transmit a report on the results of the evaluation 
     conducted under subsection (a) and any related research to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate 
     [[Page S2499]] and the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation of the House of Representatives. The report 
     shall include any related recommendations by the Secretary 
     for legislative changes.
                    TITLE III--OLDER DRIVER PROGRAMS

     SEC. 301. OLDER DRIVER SAFETY RESEARCH.

       (a) Research on Predictability of High Risk Driving.--
       (1) The Secretary shall conduct a program that funds, 
     within budgetary limitations, the research challenges 
     presented in the Transportation Research Board's report 
     entitled ``Research and Development Needs for Maintaining the 
     Safety and Mobility of Older Drivers'' and the research 
     challenges pertaining
      to older drivers presented in a report to Congress by the 
     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration entitled 
     ``Addressing the Safety Issues Related to Younger and 
     Older Drivers''.
       (2) To the extent technically feasible, the Secretary shall 
     consider the feasibility and further the development of cost 
     efficient, reliable tests capable of predicting increased 
     risk of accident involvement or hazardous driving by older 
     high risk drivers.
       (b) Specialized Training for License Examiners.--The 
     Secretary shall encourage and conduct research and 
     demonstration activities to support the specialized training 
     of license examiners or other certified examiners to increase 
     their knowledge and sensitivity to the transportation needs 
     and physical limitations of older drivers, including 
     knowledge of functional disabilities related to driving, and 
     to be cognizant of possible countermeasures to deal with the 
     challenges to safe driving that may be associated with 
     increasing age.
       (c) Counseling Procedures and Consultation Methods.--The 
     Secretary shall encourage and conduct research and 
     disseminate information to support and encourage the 
     development of appropriate counseling procedures and 
     consultation methods with relatives, physicians, the traffic 
     safety enforcement and the motor vehicle licensing 
     communities, and other concerned parties. Such procedures and 
     methods shall include the promotion of voluntary action by 
     older high risk drivers to restrict or limit their driving 
     when medical or other conditions indicate such action is 
     advisable. The Secretary shall consult extensively with the 
     American Association of Retired Persons, the American 
     Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American 
     Occupational Therapy Association, the American Automobile 
     Association, the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
     American Public Health Association, and other interested 
     parties in developing educational materials on the 
     interrelationship of the aging process, driver safety, and 
     the driver licensing process.
       (d) Alternative Transportation Means.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the agencies of the Department of Transportation 
     overseeing the various modes of surface transportation 
     coordinate their policies and programs to ensure that funds 
     authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 1914) 
     and implementing Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriation Acts take into account the 
     transportation needs of older Americans by promoting 
     alternative transportation means whenever practical and 
     feasible.
       (e) State Licensing Practices.--The Secretary shall 
     encourage State licensing agencies to use restricted licenses 
     instead of canceling a license whenever such action is 
     appropriate and if the interests of public safety would be 
     served, and to closely monitor the driving performance of 
     older drivers with such licenses. The Secretary shall 
     encourage States to provide educational materials of benefit 
     to older drivers and concerned family members and physicians. 
     The Secretary shall promote licensing and relicensing 
     programs in which the applicant appears in person and shall 
     promote the development and use of cost effective screening 
     processes and testing of physiological, cognitive, and 
     perception factors as appropriate and necessary. Not less 
     than one model State program shall be evaluated in light of 
     this subsection during each of the fiscal years 1996 through 
     1998. Of the sums authorized under subsection (i), $250,000 
     is authorized for each such fiscal year for such evaluation.
       (f) Improvement of Medical Screening.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct research and other activities designed to support and 
     encourage the States to establish and maintain medical review 
     or advisory groups to work with State licensing agencies to 
     improve and provide current information on the screening and 
     licensing of older drivers. The Secretary shall encourage the 
     participation of the public in these groups to ensure 
     fairness and concern for the safety and mobility needs of 
     older drivers.
       (g) Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems.--In implementing 
     the Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems Act of 1991 (23 
     U.S.C. 307 note), the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     National Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems Program devotes 
     sufficient attention to the use of intelligent vehicle-
     highway systems to aid older drivers in safely performing 
     driver functions. Federally sponsored research, development, 
     and operational testing shall ensure the advancement of night 
     vision improvement systems, technology to reduce the 
     involvement of older drivers in accidents occurring at 
     intersections, and other technologies of particular benefit 
     to older drivers.
       (h) Technical Evaluations Under Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act.--In conducting the technical 
     evaluations required under section 6055 of the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 
     102-240; 105 Stat. 2192), the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     safety impacts of older drivers are considered, with special 
     attention being devoted to ensuring adequate and effective 
     exchange of information between the Department of 
     Transportation and older drivers or their representatives.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the funds 
     authorized under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, 
     $1,250,000 is authorized for each of the fiscal years 1995 
     through 1997 to support older driver programs described in 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f).

                      TITLE IV--HIGH RISK DRIVERS

     SEC. 401. STUDY ON WAYS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC RECORDS OF ALL 
                   HIGH RISK DRIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall complete a study to 
     determine whether additional or strengthened Federal 
     activities, authority, or regulatory actions are desirable or 
     necessary to improve or strengthen the driver record and 
     control systems of the States to identify high risk drivers 
     more rapidly and ensure prompt intervention in the licensing 
     of high risk drivers. The study, which shall be based in part 
     on analysis obtained from a request for information published 
     in the Federal Register, shall consider steps necessary to 
     ensure that State traffic record systems are unambiguous, 
     accurate, current, accessible, complete, and (to the extend 
     useful) uniform among the States.
       (b) Specific Matters for Consideration.--Such study shall 
     at a minimum consider--
       (1) whether specific legislative action is necessary to 
     improve State traffic record systems;
       (2) the feasibility and practicality of further encouraging 
     and establishing a uniform traffic ticket citation and 
     control system;
       (3) the need for a uniform driver violation point system to 
     be adopted by the States;
       (4) the need for all the States to participate in the 
     Driver License Reciprocity Program conducted by the American 
     Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;
       (5) ways to encourage the States to cross-reference driver 
     license files and motor vehicle files to facilitate the 
     identification of individuals who may not be in compliance 
     with driver licensing laws; and
       (6) the feasibility of establishing a national program that 
     would limit each driver to one driver's license from only one 
     State at any time.
       (c) Evaluation of National Information Systems.--As part of 
     the study required by this section, the Secretary shall 
     consider and evaluate the future of the national information 
     systems that support driver licensing. In particular, the 
     Secretary shall examine whether the Commercial Driver's 
     License Information System, the National Driver Register, and 
     the Driver License Reciprocity program should be more closely 
     linked or continue to exist as separate information systems 
     and which entities are best suited to operate such systems 
     effectively at the least cost. The Secretary shall cooperate 
     with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
     in carrying out this evaluation.

     SEC. 402. STATE PROGRAMS FOR HIGH RISK DRIVERS.

       The Secretary shall encourage and promote State driver 
     evaluation, assistance, or control programs for high risk 
     drivers. These programs may include in-person license 
     reexaminations, driver education or training courses, license 
     restrictions or suspensions, and other actions designed to 
     improve the operating performance of high risk drivers.

            TITLE V--ENHANCED AUTHORIZATION FOR 410 PROGRAM

     SEC. 501. FUNDING FOR 23 USC 410 PROGRAM.

       In addition to any amount otherwise appropriated or 
     available for such use, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1995, 
     1996, and 1997 for the purpose of carrying out section 410 of 
     title 23, United States Code.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 3, 1994]

               Nebraska Leads in Drunken Driving Control

       Statistics sometimes are deceiving. Such was the case with 
     a recent federal report on drunken driving fatalities. From 
     1982 to 1993, the report indicated, some neighboring states 
     reduced alcohol-related traffic deaths much faster than did 
     Nebraska.
       Does that mean Nebraska has fallen behind? Officials in the 
     State Office of Highway Safety say the answer is no. They say 
     Nebraska was ahead and other states are catching up.
       Fred Zwonechek, the state's traffic safety administrator, 
     said that in 1980, Nebraska had 159 alcohol-related traffic 
     fatalities. In 1981, the number rose to 189. At about that 
     time, groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving were 
     demanding better enforcement. Attitudes about drinking and 
     driving began to change. In 1982, drunken driving fatalities 
     in Nebraska dropped to 102--a one-year plunge of 46 percent. 
     Since then, the number has remained at around the same level.
       Moreover, the percentage of accidents in which alcohol was 
     involved has hovered in the mid-30s in Nebraska, Zwonechek 
     said. Nationwide, the comparable figure was 57 percent in 
     1982 and 43 percent in 1993.
       [[Page S2500]] Zwonechek said all the indicators point to 
     further progress in reducing such deaths.
       Even Nebraska's lower drunken driving fatality rate, of 
     course, is still much too high. But it's good to know that 
     progress has been made. It's especially reassuring that the 
     state's top traffic safety official sees further progress 
     ahead.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Dec. 20, 1994]

                      Panel Seeks Tougher DWI Law

                     (By Paul Hammel and Bill Hord)

       Lincoln.--A task force of state legislators and law 
     enforcement officials Monday joined Gov. Nelson in calling 
     for tougher laws on drunken driving.
       The task force, however, went beyond ideas endorsed by 
     Nelson last week and proposed a stricter standard for legal 
     intoxication and repeal of a law that wipes out drunken-
     driving convictions after eight years.
       ``There are some people who are ticking time bombs out 
     there. We want to be more certain that we'll get them off the 
     road,'' said State Sen. LaVon Crosby of Lincoln, who 
     organized the task force.
       Two key proposals adopted by the 26-member Task Force on 
     Driving While Intoxicated were lowering the minimum blood-
     alcohol standard for legal intoxication from .10 percent to 
     .08 percent and eliminating the eight-year rule on use of 
     prior drunken-driving convictions.
       Neither was among the proposals endorsed last week by 
     Nelson.
       ``There ought to be some point where someone who hasn't had 
     a problem for a period of time doesn't have it hanging over 
     his or her head,'' Nelson said Monday.
       ``I don't want to see us overreach what is necessary to 
     address the problem,'' he told reporters during his weekly 
     teleconference call.
       The Legislature will get a chance to debate drunken-driving 
     laws after it convenes Jan. 4 for a 90-day session.
       Drunken-driving convictions that occurred eight years ago 
     or longer cannot be considered when bringing new charges. 
     Thus, a person who had multiple convictions would still be 
     charged with first-offense drunken driving if the other 
     offenses were at least 8 years old.
       A 33-year-old Lincoln man, Michael Fogarty, was recently 
     convicted of second-offense drunken driving even though it 
     was his eighth conviction.
       Lancaster County Attorney Gary
        Lacey said the eight-year rule was frustrating.
       ``It limits a prosecutor's ability to enhance penalties 
     without any logical reason,'' he said.
       ``We don't make an exception for habitual criminals, so why 
     should we make an exception for habitual drunk-driving 
     criminals?''
       Dropping the minimum blood-alcohol level to .08 percent--
     the standard in 11 states, including Kansas--has been 
     defeated in Nebraska during the past several legislative 
     sessions.
       Sen. Crosby and Sen. Carol Hudkins of Malcolm said the 
     public was beginning to realize that people become impaired 
     by alcohol at levels well below the current .10 percent.
       Sen. Crosby said social drinkers would be unaffected by 
     dropping the minimum standard to .08.
       ``It takes a lot (of drinking) to get to .08,'' she said. 
     ``The average social drinker isn't at .08.''
       Nelson said there was much disagreement on where to sett 
     the threshold. Some people want it at zero, he said.
       ``Before we move downward to .08, there must be hard and 
     convincing evidence that our streets will, in fact, be 
     safer.'' Nelson said, ``Why don't we go to .05?''
       Nelson said last week that he would not push for a .08 
     level but would sign such legislation if senators passed it.
       Sen. Crosby said her task force's work would probably 
     result in proposals to increase treatment of drunken drivers, 
     reinstitute mandatory driver-education courses in high school 
     and levy higher alcohol taxes, among other possible bills.
       Some task force members suggested that taxes should rise 5 
     cents per drink to help fund enforcement and treatment 
     efforts.
       ``The people who are causing the problems . . . need to be 
     responsible to pay some of the costs,'' said Sen. Hudkins, 
     who headed the task force's legal committee.
       Other recommendations include tougher penalties for 
     procuring alcohol for minors and for third-, fourth- and 
     fifth-offense drunken-driving convictions, as well as making 
     alcohol-dependency treatment mandatory for offenders.
       Task force member Diane Riibe of Hooper, past state 
     director of Mothers Against Drunken Driving, said the group's 
     study was the most comprehensive look at drunken-driving laws 
     in recent years.
       Ms. Riibe questioned the recommendation of Sen. Don Wesely 
     of Lincoln that drunken drivers undergo and finance mandatory 
     alcohol-counseling programs.
       While treatment can be helpful, she said, the primary 
     concern should be getting these drivers off the streets.
       ``We want to make sure that the policy discussion focuses 
     on the safety of the public,'' Ms. Riibe said.
       Nelson has called for, among other provisions, tougher 
     penalties for minors in possession of alcohol and for first-
     time drunken-driving offenders.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 8, 1995]

                 MADD Founder Faults Drunk-Driving Bill

                            (By Paul Hammel)

       Lincoln.--The national founder of Mothers Against Drunk 
     Driving told Nebraska lawmakers Tuesday that dropping the 
     legal blood-alcohol level for intoxication does not reduce 
     drunken driving.
       Candace Lightner of Alexandria, Va., told the Legislature's 
     Transportation Committee that dropping the legal level of 
     intoxication targets casual drinkers while ignoring the real 
     problem: alcoholics and repeat drunken drivers.
       ``If I ruled the world, I would make sure that punishment 
     is much swifter and much more sure,'' she said. ``That will 
     be more effective than passing a politically correct bill 
     that is nothing more than a feel-good, do-nothing law.''
       Ms. Lightner founded MADD in 1980 while living in 
     California after her 13-year-old daughter was killed in an 
     accident caused by a drunken driver. She was one of a handful 
     of opponents during a public hearing on a package of bills 
     designed to toughen Nebraska's drunken-driving laws.
       The bills were introduced following a summerlong study 
     headed by State Sen. LaVon Crosby of Lincoln.
       Sen. Crosby has fought unsuccessfully to lower the state's 
     legal blood-alcohol level for intoxication from .10 to .08, a 
     level now recognized in 11 states, including Kansas.
       Legislative Bill 150, introduced this year, is Sen. 
     Crosby's fourth attempt at reducing the level. Previous bills 
     have failed to advance from the transportation committee.
       A parade of speakers disagreed with Ms. Lightner's stand 
     Tuesday, instead urging Nebraska to add the .08 standard
      to its arsenal of weapons to combat drunken driving.
       James Fell of Washington, D.C., chief of the science and 
     technology office for the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, said the .08 standard is one of three 
     legislative steps that have proved effective in cutting down 
     on drunken-driving accidents.
       Nebraska, he said, has already adopted the others: a 
     ``zero-tolerance'' law on drinking by teen-age drivers and an 
     administrative license revocation act, which takes drivers' 
     licenses immediately from suspected drunken drivers.
       ``Why don't you go for the hat trick and go for all 
     three,'' Fell said, ``because it will make a difference.''
       Fell and other LB 150 supporters said that although alcohol 
     consumption and accidents involving drunken drivers have 
     fallen nationally, it is clear that drivers are impaired well 
     before reaching the .10 level for alcohol in the blood.
       A typical 170-pound man would require four drinks in an 
     hour to reach the .08 level, he said. A 130-pound woman would 
     need three drinks, Fell said.
       ``At the .08 level, there's no doubt you're impaired,'' 
     said Omaha Police Officer Chuck Matson, who also testified in 
     support of the bill.
       However, opponents of the bill, which included the state's 
     liquor and restaurant industries, said that no one wants 
     drunken drivers on the state's roads but that dropping the 
     level to .08 was unreasonable and would be ineffective.
       ``This is fixing the basement when the roof is leaking,'' 
     said Mike Kelley, an Omaha bar owner and lobbyist for the 
     United Retailers Liquor Association of Nebraska. ``This isn't 
     traffic safety, it's temperance.''
       Brent Lambi, an Omaha businessman, told committee members 
     that he was an alcoholic who would not have been deterred 
     from driving by LB 150.
       ``I think you need to take away their cars,'' said Lambi.
       Ms. Lightner said better enforcement of existing laws was 
     the answer.
       The committee took testimony on several other drunken-
     driving bills, including a measure that would prohibit 
     drivers on suspension from obtaining provisional licenses to 
     drive to work.
       Members took no action on the bills following the hearing.
       Sen. Doug Kristensen of Minden, the committee's chairman, 
     said he was unsure whether the .08 proposal would be advanced 
     this year. Kelley gave it a 50-50 chance.
       Kristensen said he expected the committee to advance some 
     anti-drunken-driving bills. He said he must be convinced they 
     would be effective before he would support them.

  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was not present to hear the entire 
presentation by Senator Exon from Nebraska but I heard enough to spark 
my interest. I came here today to speak about the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, especially the Reid amendment on 
Social Security.
  To the Senator from Nebraska, if he is working on issues dealing with 
drunk driving, I applaud him for it, and I am very interested in 
working with him on it. I will reintroduce legislation in the Senate 
that I have introduced previously on the subject of drunk driving.
  Two members of my family have been killed by drunk drivers. I expect 
there is not anyone in this Chamber who has not received a call to tell 
them a loved one, a neighbor, a relative, or a close 
[[Page S2501]] acquaintance has been in a tragic accident and has been 
killed because of a drunk driver.
  It is unforgivable in this country that today, in February 1995, 
there are still nearly 10 States in which a person can get behind a 
wheel of a car, grab the neck of a fifth of whiskey, put the key in the 
ignition, drive off and drink, and it is perfectly legal. There ought 
not to be one instance, anywhere in America, where it should be legal 
to drink and drive at the same time.
  I have tried for 5 years and will try until I get it done to 
prescribe all across this country one simple proposal: Alcohol and 
automobiles do not mix. Alcohol turns automobiles into instruments of 
murder.
  We should not tolerate the fact that there are nearly 10 States where 
a person can drink and drive, and it is legal in another 20 States 
that, if the driver cannot drink, the rest of the folks in the car can 
be having a party with beer or whiskey. The fact is we ought not accept 
that in this country. No family should receive another call at midnight 
saying their mother, their brother, their father, or their sister is 
dead because of another drunk-driving accident.
  I say to the Senator from Nebraska, I do not know the details of his 
legislation, but I do know this: As long as I serve in the Congress, I 
will continue, year after year after year, until all across this 
country no matter where an American drives, on whichever street or road 
or highway, that person will have some assurance that it is not legal 
in that jurisdiction to be drinking while driving and it is not legal 
in that jurisdiction to have an open container of alcohol in the 
vehicle. That ought to be the minimum we would expect in this country 
for the state of all Americans.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a moment so I 
might thank him?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President I am happy to yield.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I listened with keen interest to the remarks 
of my friend and colleague from North Dakota. I know he has been very 
much involved in this thing, and I want to thank him now for the 
support he gave to the Exon-Danforth bill last year. The Senator voted 
for it.
  I think it is the same, as I outlined in my remarks, since it passed 
the House and the Senate. I see no reason why we cannot expedite 
passage of this matter. I have delayed introducing it only because 
there were many other things going on, but I think, even as important 
as those matters are, that we should get going on this.
  Certainly, I was not aware of the sad fact that two members of his 
family have been killed by a drunk driver. Hardly a week goes by but 
that something very similar happens in the State of Nebraska, where the 
population compared with other States is smaller and we hear more about 
it.
  There are some things that we can do, rather than just sit back and 
wring our hands. There are some things, and I think the Federal 
Government can legitimately be of assistance to the States.
  I must tell the Senator that this piece of legislation was sparked 
primarily by a typically tragic teenage accident that happened in my 
State not too many months ago where young people, 16 and 17 years of 
age, went out for a good time at night. The problem was that the driver 
had one too many half-cans of beer. It is a tragic. I am not saying 
that this bill will solve all of the problem, but I appreciate the 
pledge of support from my colleague from North Dakota.
  I think that the feelings of this Senator, the Senator from North 
Dakota, and others are shared broadly on both sides of the aisle on 
this matter, on this measure. It is not a cure-all, but a significant 
step in the right direction. I thank my friend from North Dakota for 
his remarks.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator. I hope we can go further. I 
certainly support these efforts. As I said, we will be finished when we 
have prescribed all across this country an understanding that a person 
cannot drink and drive in this country.
  Again, to me it does not make sense that in England, in European 
countries, for example, people understand that the consequences of 
drunk driving are so substantial that a person better not get caught 
because they will get hit with an enormous penalty. There is a 
completely different attitude about it in the European countries. Here 
it has been treated kind of like, Well, old Joe, or old Helen just went 
out and had too much to drink. That was not a problem.
  It was not, unless they murdered with a vehicle. That is what happens 
in this country. Every 28 minutes, around the clock, somebody gets 
another call that says your relative died because of a drunk driver. 
This is not some mysterious illness for which we do not have a cure. 
This is not beyond the comprehension of humans to deal with. We deal 
with it by saying to people, Do not even think about driving if you 
drink. Don't even think about it. The consequences are too great.
  The very first step is for governments, every government, to decide 
that there ought to be a prohibition against open containers of alcohol 
in vehicles.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roth, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
        Thomas, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 388. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to eliminate 
the penalties for noncompliance by States with a program requiring the 
use of motorcycle helmets, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                     motorcycle helmet legislation

 Ms. SNOWE. Ms. President, today I am introducing legislation 
restoring the rights of States to decide for themselves whether to 
require the use of motorcycle helmets.
  My bill is quite simple: it repeals the penalties specified in 
section 153 of title 23 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act [ISTEA], passed in 1991. Section 153 imposed a penalty 
on those States that had not complied by September 30, 1994. These 
Federal sanctions forced States without helmet laws to divert 1.5 
percent of their fiscal 1995 highway funds from three programs--the 
National Highway Safety Program, the Surface Transportation Program, 
and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--and 
spend those funds instead on section 402 safety programs. For fiscal 
year 1996, the penalty doubled, taking a 3-percent chunk from the State 
highway construction account.
  This compulsory mechanism has the ironic effect of actually 
decreasing the safety of some highways, as funds available for needed 
repairs are diverted for safety education and awareness programs.
  Once again, the Federal Government is trying to micromanage State 
transportation budgets, imposing a heavy-handed Federal mandate upon 
more than half of our States. And make no mistake, Mr. President: this 
is no carrot and stick. It is a mandate, and despite the broad reach of 
Federal law, section 153 has failed in its explicit intent.
  Fewer than half of the States are in compliance with this Federal 
law. Two years into these intrusive Federal sanctions, 28 States remain 
without helmet laws and are subject to financial penalties. These 
States disagree with the Federal Government's intrusion into what has 
traditionally been within the jurisdiction of individual States. And 
although Federal penalties doubled last year, none of these States have 
passed laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.
  The estimated penalties facing States under section 153 total $106.6 
million--$106.6 million that is no longer available to upgrade roads in 
the National Highway System Program--$106.6 million that is unavailable 
to construct and maintain highways--$106.6 million that is no longer 
available to promote mass transit--$106.6 million that is unavailable 
to make sure that this crucial transportation infrastructure is not 
only modern but safe.
  Instead, these valuable Federal dollars will be spent on highway 
safety programs, which most States already fund quite generously. 
States--and motorcyclists in the States--have been at 
[[Page S2502]] the forefront of highway safety programs. Forty-two 
States have funded State motorcycle safety programs, most of which are 
paid for by the motorcyclists themselves, through motorcycle 
registration and license fees. Motorcyclists understand that their 
safety is at risk on highways--and they want to make sure that their 
fellow riders and drivers of passenger cars and trucks have good 
awareness of motorcycle safety.
  Nevertheless, the Federal Government--through section 153--insists of 
forcing States to redirect their precious Federal resources to programs 
that are already well-funded. Frankly, I don't believe that we should 
compel States to direct desperately needed highway construction funds 
into highway safety programs that are already well funded.
  The most recent data shows that States have already been doing an 
excellent job promoting highway safety. since 1983, the number of 
accidents has decreased from 3,070 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists 
to 206. Fatalities have similarly declined from 8 per 10,000 registered 
motorcyclists to 6 per 10,000 registered motorcyclists. Even without a 
motorcyle helmet law, the number of motorcycle occupant fatalities 
declined 58.9 percent, from 5,097 in 1980 to 2,398 in 1992 when no 
mandatory Federal helmet law existed. Accidents declined by 53.4 
percent in this same period. This substantial decline in motorcyle 
fatalities demonstrates that States are capable of addressing safety 
issues without intervention by the Federal Government.
  It is also interesting to note that of the 10 States with the lowest 
motorcycle accident rate, 8 had motorcycle rider education programs. In 
fact, the 10 States with the lowest motorcycle accident rates spent 
64.4 percent more on motorcycle rider education programs than States 
with the 10 highest motorcycle accident rates. Clearly, safety programs 
do work, and we should allow them to continue to work.
  The penalty provisions of section 153 affect States in dire need of 
their highway construction funds. For my State of Maine, the estimated 
penalty was $853,194 in fiscal year 1995, increasing to $1,706,387 in 
fiscal year 1996. I believe that section 153 runs contrary to the 
principles of federalism, as the Federal Government tries to thwart the 
efforts of States to rebuild their transportation infrastructure in 
order to coerce States to pass helmet laws. And it is poor public 
policy, because poorly-maintained roads are often quite hazardous to 
the motoring public.
  I have always strived to protect the interests of our communities by 
allowing them and the individual States to make the important decisions 
on how their affairs should be run. I believe that each State and each 
community should, to the extent of their ability, be allowed to make 
their own policy decisions. This is consistent with the ideas of the 
Founding Fathers.
  State governments are closer to their citizens than the Federal 
Government. Surely, these democratic institutions understand the best 
interests of their citizens on this important issue, and the Federal 
Government should respect their decision. Yet section 153 erodes the 
very freedoms and liberties of our democracy, and on which our Nation 
was founded. Through provisions such as section 153, we are gradually 
stripping away the limited autonomy of the States.
  Where will we draw the line? How far will Congress go in the debate 
over State freedoms? The National Conference of State Legislators 
expressed a clear and solid view during testimony before Congress in 
1993: the mandatory helmet and seat belt law provision, it said, is one 
of the most infringing provisions on the right of individual States 
included in ISTEA.
  Clearly, we must continue to do everything we can to make our roads 
safer, and to reduce the number of fatalities and severe injuries that 
occur on our Nation's highways. But I believe there are better ways for 
us to achieve these goals, without resorting to penalties on our 
financially burdened States.
  At a time when Congress has already acted to eliminate future 
unfunded mandates on the States, we understand the burden that our 
actions can impose on the States. Surely, we can remove this 
unnecessary and intrusive mandate and restore authority to State 
Governments where they belong.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues, however, to support the 
grant incentive provisions of section 153 and, and to explore 
additional options for enhancing highway safety. In the meantime, we 
should give the States some credit for keeping their roads and highways 
safe and repeal the insulting penalties contained in section 153.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 389. A bill for the relief of Nguyen Quy An and his daughter, 
Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       PRIVATE RELIEF LEGISLATION

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill 
for the relief of Maj. Nguyen Quy An and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim 
Quy.
  Major An, a former South Vietnamese helicopter pilot, was awarded the 
Distinguished Flying Cross for risking his own life to save four 
American servicemen in Vietnam in 1969. Two years later, his helicopter 
was hit by enemy fire and went down in flames while he was on a mission 
in Vietnam's central highlands. Major An managed to land the aircraft 
safely, saving himself and his crew; however, his arms were severely 
burned and had to be amputated by American doctors. He was imprisoned 
in a Vietnamese reeducation camp for 9 weeks, but was released because 
he was considered worthless without his two hands. Major An attempted 
to escape Vietnam by boat three times, but each time he was captured, 
and he spent 17 months in jail for the escape attempts.
  Mr. President, last January, Senators Simpson, Mathews, Hatfield, 
Specter, Nickles, Bennett, and myself gave Major An and his daughter 
refuge on an Air Force plane from Ho Chi Minh City to Bangkok. One of 
the most touching moments I have ever experienced was the thrill of 
announcing to Major An that our plane had cleared Vietnam's airspace 
and hearing everyone in our delegation and the military escorts clap 
and cheer. Major An and his daughter are currently in this country on 
humanitarian parole.
  In the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation cosponsored by 
Senators Mathews, Hatfield, Specter, Nickles, and Bennett for the 
relief of Major An and his daughter. Unfortunately, this bill was not 
acted on last year, so I rise today to submit new legislation for their 
relief. I hope my colleagues will join with me in recognizing the 
heroic actions of Major An and will reward him for his bravery by 
giving him and his daughter the opportunity to reside permanently in 
the United States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kerrey, and 
        Mr. D'Amato) (by request):
  S. 390. A bill to improve the ability of the United States to respond 
to the international terrorist threat; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                the omnibus counterterrorism act of 1995

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, at the request of President Clinton, 
I am introducing today legislation to combat international terrorism. 
The very grave threat to the United States posed by violent terrorist 
acts is documented by the events of this week, as well as of the past 2 
years.
  Two days ago, Ahmed Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of New 
York's World Trade Center bombing 2 years ago, was arrested and 
extradited from Pakistan. Explosives and United and Delta Airlines 
timetables were recovered from his hotel room in Pakistan.
  Even as legal proceedings now begin against him, 11 other men are on 
trial in Federal court in New York City for conspiracy to commit 
several heinous acts of terrorism in and around Manhattan--including 
the World Trade Center bombing.
  These incidents demonstrate that the United States and its citizens 
continue to be the focus of extremists who are willing and able to use 
violence to advance their cause. The damage this terrorism causes 
extends beyond the tragic loss of life and damage of the World Trade 
Center bombing.
  Indeed, the revelation that terror networks are operating in our 
midst undeniably has its intended effect on 
[[Page S2503]] our national psyche--it undermines the sense of security 
of all Americans both at home and abroad.
  Equally important, the continued operation of numerous terrorist 
organizations around the globe undermines the stability of key U.S. 
allies and important foreign policy objectives.
  In the Middle East, terrorism perpetrated by groups supported by Iran 
and Syria pose a grave threat to the already fragile Middle East peace 
process.
  The recent bombing in central Tel Aviv, which killed 19 Israelis--
many of them soldiers on leave--was only the latest in a series of 
attacks carried out by Palestinian extremists since the signing of the 
Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles in September 1993.
  In South America, terrorists in Colombia and Peru--often in league 
with narcotics traffickers--attack the very institutions of State, 
weakening the ability of those governments to confront the drug trade--
a trade that continues to plague our own society.
  A short time ago, international terrorism seemed to be in decline. 
But in 1993, the last year for which data are available, the State 
Department's Office of Counterterrorism reports that there were 427 
terrorist incidents, an increase from 364 incidents in 1992.
  The main reason for the increase was an acceleration of the campaign 
conducted by the Kurdistan workers party--known as the PKK--against 
Turkish interests in Western Europe.
  But the raw numbers--and the dry statistics of which group 
perpetrated what attack--do not even begin to portray the harm caused 
by the heinous acts of terrorist violence.
  Wherever it occurs, the lost lives, broken hearts, and destroyed 
dreams of the thousands touched by terrorism is tangible, while the 
fear that grips the citizenry--the fear of the indiscriminate attack 
that can occur at any time--cannot be quantified. But its effect is all 
too real.
  In the 1980's, Congress and the Reagan administration worked together 
to empower law enforcement with many tools to counter the men of 
terror. Last year, President Clinton urged a refocus on terrorism--and 
sought recommendations from the executive branch agencies on new tools 
that might be needed in the fight against terrorism.
  Now, this bill includes a number of provisions to help in that fight. 
The bill expands the circumstances in which we can prosecute crimes 
committed overseas which affect our interests. It also prohibits 
persons in the United States from conspiring to commit terrorism 
overseas--and from raising funds for foreign terrorist organizations.
  In addition, the bill implements the convention on the marking of 
plastic explosives for the purposes of detection. That convention was 
an international response to earlier terrorist bombings of aircraft, 
requiring manufacturers of plastic explosives to make them easier to 
detect.
  The bill also expands the coverage of the existing statute involving 
transactions in nuclear materials, to cover materials from the 
dismantling of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union.
  It also allows prosecutors to use the Federal RICO and money 
laundering statutes to attack terrorism, and fills gaps in current law 
by authorizing wiretaps for investigations of all terrorism offenses. 
Other more technical changes will also enhance the law enforcement 
response to terrorism.
  Finally, the bill includes a new Federal terrorism offense, with 
stiff penalties--including a new death penalty for terrorist murders. 
This is an important, an appropriate, new Federal offense.
  The expansion of Federal jurisdiction has been a contested issue in 
recent years. I have long opposed broad assertions of Federal 
jurisdiction over offenses which are more appropriately prosecuted in 
State courts. But, in my view, international terrorism requires a 
Federal response.
  As expressed in its letter transmitting the legislation to the 
Congress, the administration stated that it intends that section 101 
confer Federal jurisdiction only over acts of violence that are, 
indeed, international terrorism offenses.
  I strongly support that intent, but I believe the language of section 
101 could be improved to better reflect that intent. The administration 
has agreed to work with the Congress to make modifications to the 
legislative language to further that goal.
  I must also point out that the bill includes one provision which I 
strongly oppose in its current form. That is the provision which allows 
secret evidence to be used in a deportation proceeding against an 
immigrant--even a legal permanent resident--who is alleged to be a 
terrorist.
  Under current law, any person who is not a citizen--including legal 
immigrants--is deportable if the person is engaged in terrorist 
activities, even without a criminal conviction.
  This bill would create a new and, in my view, troubling court 
procedure which would allow the Government to deport an immigrant based 
on secret evidence, on evidence unknown to the immigrant or his 
counsel.
  The right to see and confront the evidence against oneself is a 
fundamental premise of the due process clause of the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has held that the due process clause applies to 
aliens in the United States, and that it applies to deportation 
proceedings.
  Deportation can be a dramatic step. This procedure could be used, for 
instance, against a legal permanent resident who has lived in the 
United States with all of his family for 40 or more years.
  Deportation could mean separation from family, and could mean removal 
to a country in which the person has never before lived, since a person 
is not always deported to the person's country of citizenship.
  The use of secret information is unprecedented. Even in other cases 
where sensitive information is involved, the Government is required to 
give a defendant a summary of the evidence to be used against him.
  The use of secret evidence raises fundamental questions about the 
accuracy of any determinations made using that procedure. Our system of 
justice is an adversarial one. It assumes that by allowing defendants 
to see and challenge the evidence against them, the reliability and 
truthfulness of that information can be evaluated.
  That is what cross-examination is all about--to test the reliability 
and biases of the witness. That is why the defense is allowed to put on 
witnesses to rebut evidence presented by the prosecution. If a person 
does not know what evidence is being used against him, it is simply 
impossible to subject that evidence to the scrutiny our system 
requires.
  I agree with the administration that we must have the ability to 
deport aliens involved in terrorist activities. I also agree that we 
must be able to safeguard classified information. But I am not 
convinced that nothing short of secret evidence can protect our 
security. Why, for example, can we not consider applying the Classified 
Information Procedures Act--a tried and tested process--to deportation 
proceedings, before we sanction in this country Kafkaesque procedures 
requiring people to defend against unknown and unseen evidence.
  I have introduced this bill at the President's request. I support 
most of its provisions, as I am sure most Senators will. But as I have 
said, I will work to modify certain portions of the bill even as we 
move expeditiously to see it enacted into law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 390

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act 
     of 1995.''

     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. Findings and purposes.

             TITLE I--SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS

Sec. 101. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
[[Page S2504]] Sec. 102. Conspiracy to harm people or property 
              overseas.
Sec. 103. Clarification and extension of criminal jurisdiction over 
              certain terrorism offense overseas.

                 TITLE II--IMMIGRATION LAW IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 201. Alien terrorist removal procedures.
Sec. 202. Changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate 
              removal of alien terrorists.
Sec. 203. Access to certain confidential INS files through court order.

            TITLE III--CONTROLS OVER TERRORIST FUND-RAISING

Sec. 301. Terrorist fund-raising prohibited.

       TITLE IV--CONVENTION ON THE MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 403. Definitions.
Sec. 404. Requirement of detection agents for plastic explosives.
Sec. 405. Criminal sanctions.
Sec. 406. Exceptions.
Sec. 407. Investigative authority.
Sec. 408. Effective date.

                       TITLE V--NUCLEAR MATERIALS

Sec. 501. Expansion of nuclear materials prohibitions.
    TITLE VI--PROCEDURAL AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 601. Correction to material support provision.
Sec. 602. Expansion of weapons of mass destruction statute.
Sec. 603. Addition of terrorist offenses to the RICO statute.
Sec. 604. Addition of terrorist offenses to the money laundering 
              statute.
Sec. 605. Authorization for interception of communications in certain 
              terrorism related offenses.
Sec. 606. Clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction.
Sec. 607. Expansion of federal jurisdiction over bomb threats.
Sec. 608. Increased penalty for explosives conspiracies.
Sec. 609. Amendment to include assaults, murder, and threats against 
              former federal officials on account of the performance of 
              their official duties.
Sec. 610. Addition of conspiracy to terrorism offenses.

                  TITLE VII--ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE

Sec. 701. Findings.
Sec. 702. Antiterrorism assistance amendments.
     SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) The Congress finds and declares--
       (1) International terrorism remains a serious and deadly 
     problem which threatens the interests of the United States 
     both overseas and within its territory. States or 
     organizations that practice terrorism or actively support it 
     should not be allowed to do so without serious consequence;
       (2) International terrorism directed against United States 
     interests must be confronted by the appropriate use of the 
     full array of tools available to the President, including 
     diplomatic, military, economic and prosecutive actions;
       (3) The Nation's security interests are seriously impacted 
     by terrorist attacks carried out overseas against United 
     States Government facilities, officials and other American 
     citizens present in foreign countries;
       (4) United States foreign policy interests are profoundly 
     affected by terrorist acts overseas especially those directed 
     against friendly foreign governments and their people and 
     those intended to undermine the peaceful resolution of 
     disputes in the Middle East and other troubled regions;
       (5) Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the defeat of the 
     Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the peace initiative in the 
     Middle East, and the fall of communism throughout Eastern 
     Europe and the former Soviet Union, international terrorism 
     has become a more complex problem, with new alliances 
     emerging among terrorist organizations;
       (6) Violent crime is a pervasive international problem and 
     is exacerbated by the free international movement of drugs, 
     firearms, explosives and individuals dedicated to performing 
     acts of international terrorism who travel using false or 
     fraudulent documentation;
       (7) While international terrorists move freely from country 
     to country, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors often fear 
     to travel to or through certain parts of the world due to 
     concern about terrorist violence;
       (8) In addition to the destruction of property and 
     devastation to human life, the occurrence of an international 
     terrorist event results in a decline of tourism and affects 
     the marketplace, thereby having an adverse impact on 
     interstate and foreign commerce and economies of friendly 
     nations;
       (9) International terrorists, violating the sovereignty of 
     foreign countries, attack dissidents and former colleagues 
     living in foreign countries, including the United States;
       (10) International terrorists, both inside and outside the 
     United States, carefully plan attacks and carry them out in 
     foreign countries against innocent victims;
       (11) There are increasing intelligence indications of 
     networking between different international terrorist 
     organizations leading to their increased cooperation and 
     sharing of information and resources in areas of common 
     interest;
       (12) In response, increased international coordination of 
     legal and enforcement issues is required, pursuant, for 
     example, to the numerous multilateral conventions in force 
     providing universal prosecutive jurisdiction over persons 
     involved in a variety of terrorist acts, including hostage 
     taking, murder of an internationally protected person, and 
     aircraft piracy and sabotage;
       (13) Until recently, United States asylum processing 
     procedures have been complicated and often duplicative, 
     providing a powerful incentive for individuals, including 
     terrorists, without a genuine claim, to apply for asylum and 
     remain in the United States;
       (14) The United States Constitution grants Congress the 
     power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to 
     make all laws necessary and proper thereto;
       (15) Part of that power authorizes the Congress to 
     establish laws directly applicable to alien conduct within 
     the United States that harms the foreign relations, domestic 
     tranquility or national security of the United States;
       (16) While the vast majority of aliens justify the trust 
     placed in them by United States immigration policies, a 
     dangerous few utilized access to the United States to carry 
     out their terrorist activity to the detriment of this 
     nation's national security and foreign policy interests. 
     Accordingly, international terrorist organizations have been 
     able to create significant infrastructures and cells in the 
     United States among aliens who are in this country either 
     temporarily or as permanent resident aliens;
       (17) International terrorist organizations, acting through 
     affiliated groups and/or individuals, have been raising 
     significant funds within the United States, often through 
     misrepresentation of their purposes or subtle forms of 
     extortion, or using the United States as a conduit for 
     transferring funds among countries;
       (18) The provision of funds to organizations that engage in 
     terrorism serves to facilitate their terrorist activities 
     regardless of whether the funds, in whole or in part, are 
     intended or claimed to be used for non-violent purposes;
       (19) Certain foreign governments and international 
     terrorist organizations have directed their members or 
     sympathizers residing in the United States to take measures 
     in support of terrorist acts, either within or outside the 
     United States;
       (20) Present federal law does not adequately reach all 
     terrorist activity likely to be engaged in by aliens within 
     the United States;
       (21) Law enforcement officials have been hindered in using 
     current immigration law to deport alien terrorists because 
     the law fails to provide procedures to protect classified 
     intelligence sources and information. Moreover, a few high 
     ranking members of terrorist organizations have been 
     naturalized as United States citizens because denial of such 
     naturalizations would have necessitated public disclosure of 
     highly classified sources and methods. Furthermore, 
     deportation hearings frequently extend over several years, 
     thus hampering the expeditious removal of aliens engaging in 
     terrorist activity;
       (22) Present immigration law is inadequate to protect the 
     United States from terrorist attacks by certain aliens. New 
     procedures are needed to permit expeditious removal of alien 
     terrorists from the United States, thereby reducing the 
     threat that such aliens pose to the national security and 
     other vital interests of the United States;
       (23) International terrorist organizations that have 
     infrastructure support within the United States are believed 
     to have been responsible for--
       (A) conspiring in 1982 to bomb the Turkish Honorary 
     Consulate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
       (B) bombing the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983;
       (C) holding Americans hostage in Lebanon from 1984-1991;
       (D) hijacking in 1984 Kuwait Airlines Flight 221 during 
     which two American employees of the Agency for International 
     Development were murdered;
       (E) hijacking in 1985 TWA Flight 847 during which a United 
     States Navy diver was murdered;
       (F) murdering in 1985 an American tourist aboard the 
     Achille Lauro cruise liner;
       (G) hijacking in 1985 Egypt Air Flight 648 during which one 
     American and one Israeli were killed;
       (H) murdering in 1985 four members of the United States 
     Marine Corps in El Salvador;
       (I) attacking in December 1985 the Rome and Vienna airports 
     resulting in the death of a young American girl;
       (J) hijacking in 1986 Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, 
     Pakistan, in which 44 Americans were held hostage and two 
     were killed;
       (K) conspiring in 1986 in New York City to bomb an Air 
     India aircraft;
       (L) bombing in April 1988 the USO club in Naples, Italy, 
     killing one American servicewoman and injuring four American 
     servicemen;
       (M) attacking in 1988 the Greek cruise ship ``City of 
     Poros'';
       (N) bombing in 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 resulting in 270 
     deaths;
       (O) bombing in 1989 UTA Flight 772 resulting in 171 deaths, 
     including seven Americans;
       [[Page S2505]] (P) murdering in 1989 a United States Marine 
     Corps officer assigned to the United Nations Truce 
     Supervisory Organization in Lebanon;
       (Q) downing in January 1991 a United States military 
     helicopter in El Salvador causing the death of a United 
     States military crewman as a result of the crash and 
     subsequently murdering its two surviving United States 
     military crewmen;
       (R) bombing in February 1992 the United States Ambassador's 
     residence in Lima, Peru;
       (S) bombing in February 1993 a cafe in Cairo, Egypt, which 
     wounded two United States citizens;
       (T) bombing in February 1993 the World Trade Center in New 
     York City, resulting in six deaths;
       (U) conspiring in the New York City area in 1993 to destroy 
     several government buildings and tunnels;
       (V) wounding in October 1994 two United States citizens on 
     a crowded street in Jerusalem, Israel;
       (W) kidnapping and subsequently murdering in October 1994 a 
     dual citizen of the United States and Israel; and
       (X) numerous bombings and murders in Northern Ireland over 
     the past decade;
       (24) Nuclear materials, including byproduct materials, can 
     be used to create radioactive dispersal devices which are 
     capable of causing serious bodily injury as well as 
     substantial damage to property and the environment;
       (25) The potential use of nuclear materials, including 
     byproduct materials, enhances the threat posed by terrorist 
     activities and thereby has a greater effect on the security 
     interests of the United States;
       (26) Due to the widespread hazards presented by the threat 
     of nuclear contamination, as well as nuclear bombs, the 
     United States has strong interest in assuring that persons 
     who are engaged in the illegal acquisition and use of nuclear 
     materials, including byproduct materials, are prosecuted for
      their offenses;
       (27) The threat that nuclear materials will be obtained and 
     used by terrorist and other criminal organizations has 
     increased substantially due to international developments in 
     the years since the enactment in 1982 of the legislation 
     which implemented the Convention on the Physicial Protection 
     of Nuclear Material, codified at 18 U.S.C. 831;
       (28) The successful effort to obtain agreements from other 
     countries to dismantle and destroy nuclear weapons has 
     resulted in increased packaging and transportation of nuclear 
     materials, thereby creating more opportunities for their 
     unlawful diversion or theft;
       (29) The illicit trafficking in the relatively more common, 
     commercially available and usable nuclear and byproduct 
     materials poses a potential to cause significant loss of life 
     and/or environmental damage;
       (30) Reported trafficking incidents in the early 1990's 
     suggest that the individuals involved in trafficking these 
     materials from Eurasia and Eastern Europe frequently 
     conducted their black market sales within the Federal 
     Republic of Germany, the Baltic States, and to a lesser 
     extent in the Middle European countries;
       (31) The international community has become increasingly 
     concerned over the illegal possession of nuclear and nuclear 
     byproducts materials;
       (32) The potentially disastrous ramifications of increased 
     access by terrorists to nuclear and nuclear byproduct 
     materials pose such a significant future threat that the 
     United States must use all lawful methods available to combat 
     the illegal use of such materials;
       (33) The United States has an interest in encouraging 
     United States corporations to do business in the countries 
     which comprised the former Soviet Union, as well as in other 
     developing democracies; protection of such corporations from 
     threats created by the unlawful use of nuclear materials is 
     important to encourage such business ventures, and to further 
     the foreign relations and commerce of the United States;
       (34) The nature of nuclear contamination is such that it 
     may affect the health, environment, and property of United 
     States nationals even if the acts which constitute the 
     illegal activity occur outside the territory of the United 
     States, and are primarily directed toward non-nationals of 
     the United States;
       (35) Plastic explosives were used by terrorists in the 
     bombings of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 and UTA flight 
     772 in September 1989;
       (36) Plastic explosives currently can be used with little 
     likelihood of detection for acts of unlawful interference 
     with civil aviation, maritime navigation, and other modes of 
     transportation;
       (37) The marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of 
     detection would contribute significantly to the prevention 
     and punishment of such unlawful acts; and
       (38) In order to deter and detect the unlawful use of 
     plastic explosives, the Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done at Montreal on 
     1 March 1991, requires each contracting State to adopt 
     appropriate measures to ensure that plastic explosives are 
     duly marked and controlled.
       The Congress further finds:
       (39) Such international terrorist offenses place innocent 
     lives in jeopardy, endanger national security, affect 
     domestic tranquility, and gravely impact on interstate and 
     foreign commerce;
       (40) Such international terrorist offenses involve 
     international associations, communication, and mobility which 
     can often be addressed effectively only at the federal law 
     enforcement level;
       (41) There previously has been no federal criminal statute 
     which provides a comprehensive basis for addressing acts of 
     international terrorism carried out within the United States;
       (42) There previously has been no federal provision that 
     specifically prohibits fund raising within the United States 
     on behalf of international terrorist organizations;
       (43) There previously has been no adequate procedure under 
     the immigration law that permits the expeditious removal of 
     resident and non-resident alien terrorists;
       (44) There previously has been no federal criminal statute 
     which provides adequate protection to United States interests 
     from non-weapons grade, yet hazardous radioactive material, 
     and from the illegal diversion of nuclear materials which are 
     held for other than peaceful purposes;
       (45) There previously has been no federal law that requires 
     the marking of plastic explosives to improve their 
     detectability; and
       (46) Congress has the power under the interstate and 
     foreign commerce clause, and other provisions of the 
     Constitution, to enact the following measures against 
     international terrorism in order to help ensure the integrity 
     and safety of the Nation.
       (b) The purposes of this Act are to provide:
       (1) federal law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest 
     possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the United 
     States to address, pursuant to the rule of law, acts of 
     international terrorism occurring within the United States, 
     or directed against the United States or its nationals 
     anywhere in the world;
       (2) the Federal Government the fullest possible basis, 
     consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to 
     prevent persons and organizations within the jurisdiction of 
     the United States from providing funds, directly or 
     indirectly, to organizations, including subordinate or 
     affiliated persons, designated by the President as engaging 
     in terrorism, unless authorized under this Act;
       (3) procedures which, consistent with principles of 
     fundamental fairness, will allow the government to deport 
     resident and non-resident alien terrorists promptly without 
     compromising intelligence sources and methods;
       (4) provide federal law enforcement the necessary tools and 
     fullest possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the 
     United States to combat the threat of nuclear contamination 
     and proliferation which may result from illegal possession 
     and use of radioactive materials; and
       (5) fully implement the Convention on the Marking or 
     Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, done at 
     Montreal on 1 March 1991.

             TITLE I--SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW ENHANCEMENTS

     SEC. 101. ACTS OF TERRORISM TRANSCENDING NATIONAL BOUNDARIES.

       (a) Offense.--Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 2332a this new section:
       ``2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
       ``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
       ``(1) The Congress hereby finds that--
       ``(A) international terrorism is a serious and deadly 
     problem which threatens the interests of this nation not only 
     overseas but also within our territory;
       ``(B) international terrorists have demonstrated their 
     intention and capability of carrying out attacks within the 
     United States by, for example, bombing the World Trade Center 
     in New York and undertaking attacks, including 
     assassinations, against former colleagues and opponents who 
     have taken up residence in this country;
       ``(C) United States foreign policy interests are seriously 
     affected by terrorist acts within the United States directed 
     against foreign governments and their people;
       ``(D) such offenses place innocent lives in jeopardy, 
     endanger national security, affect domestic tranquility, and 
     gravely impact on interstate and foreign commerce;
       ``(E) such offenses involve international associations, 
     communication, and mobility which often can be addressed 
     effectively only at the federal law enforcement level; and
       ``(F) there previously has been no federal criminal statute 
     which provides a comprehensive basis for addressing acts of 
     international terrorism carried out within the United States.
       ``(2) The purpose of this section is to provide federal law 
     enforcement the fullest possible basis allowed under the 
     Constitution to address acts of international terrorism 
     occurring within the United States.
       ``(b) Prohibited Acts.--
       ``(1) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection 
     (c),
       ``(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting 
     in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon 
     any individual within the United States; or
       ``(B) destroys or damages any structure, conveyance or 
     other real or personal property within the United States,

     in violation of the laws of any State or the United States 
     shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Whoever threatens to commit an offense under 
     subsection (b)(1), or attempts or conspires so to do, shall 
     be punished as prescribed in subsection (d).
       [[Page S2506]] ``(c) Jurisdictional Bases.--The 
     circumstances referred to in subsection (b) are:
       ``(1) any of the offenders travels in commerce with the 
     intent to commit the offense or to escape apprehension after 
     the commission of such offense;
       ``(2) the mail, or any facility utilized in any manner in 
     commerce, is used in furtherance of the commission of the 
     offense or to effect the escape of any offender after the 
     commission of such offense;
       ``(3) the offense obstructs, delays or affects commerce in 
     any way or degree or would have so obstructed, delayed or 
     affected commerce if the offense had been consummated;
       ``(4) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States 
     Government or any official, officer, employee or agent of the 
     legislative, executive or judicial branches, or of any 
     department or agency, of the United States;
       ``(5) the structure, conveyance or other real or personal 
     property (A) was used in commerce or in any activity 
     affecting commerce, or (B) was in whole or in part owned, 
     possessed, or used by, or leased to (I) the United States, or 
     any department or agency thereof, or (II) any institution or 
     organization receiving federal financial assistance or 
     insured by any department or agency of the United States;
       ``(6) any victim, or intended victim, of the offense is, at 
     the time of the offense, traveling in commerce;
       ``(7) any victim, intended victim or offender is not a 
     national of the United States;
       ``(8) the offense is committed in the territorial sea 
     (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil 
     below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected 
     thereon) of the United States; or
       ``(9) the offense is committed in those places within the 
     United States that are in the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

     Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and 
     coconspirators of an offense under subsection (b), and 
     accessories after the fact to any offense based upon 
     subsection (b), if at least one of the above circumstances is 
     applicable to at least one offender.
       ``(d) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall, in 
     addition to the punishment provided for any other crime 
     charged in the indictment, be punished--
       ``(1) for a killing or if death results to any person from 
     any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death or by 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
       ``(2) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years 
     or for life;
       ``(3) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 
     thirty-five years;
       ``(4) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault 
     resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not 
     more than thirty years;
       ``(5) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance 
     or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not 
     more than twenty-five years;
       ``(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, 
     for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would 
     have applied had the offense been completed; and
       ``(7) for threatening to commit an offense under this 
     section, by imprisonment for not more than ten years.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
     not place on probation any person convicted of a violation of 
     this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed 
     under this section run concurrently with any other term of 
     imprisonment.
       ``(e) Limitation on Prosecution.--No indictment for any 
     offense described in this section shall be sought by the 
     United States except after the Attorney General, or the 
     highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with 
     responsibility for criminal prosecutions, has made a written 
     certification that, in the judgment of the certifying 
     official, such offense, or any activity preparatory to its 
     commission, transcended national boundaries and that the 
     offense appears to have been intended to coerce, intimidate, 
     or retaliate against a government or a civilian population, 
     including any segment thereof.
       ``(f) Investigative Responsibility.--Violations of this 
     section shall be investigated by the Attorney General. 
     Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State or local 
     agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, 
     rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
       ``(g) Evidence.--
       ``(1) The prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by 
     any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the 
     indictment.
       ``(2) In a prosecution under this section that is based 
     upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the 
     offense under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to 
     criminal procedure or evidence, are adopted.
       ``(h) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial federal jurisdiction (1) over any offense 
     under subsection (b), including any threat, attempt, or 
     conspiracy to commit such offense, and (2) over conduct 
     which, under section 3 of this title, renders any person an 
     accessory after the fact to an offense under subsection (b).
       ``(i) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term--
       ``(1) `commerce' has the meaning given such term in section 
     1951(b)(3) of this title;
       ``(2) `facility utilized in any manner in commerce' 
     includes means of transportation, communication, and 
     transmission;
       ``(3) `national of the United States' has the meaning 
     prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
       ``(4) `serious bodily injury' has the meaning prescribed in 
     section 1365(g)(3) of this title;
       ``(5) `State' includes a State of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory or 
     possession of the United States; and
       ``(6) `territorial sea of the United States' means all 
     waters extending seaward to 12 nautical miles from the 
     baselines of the United States determined in accordance with 
     international law.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for Chapter 
     113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after ``2332a. Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' the 
     following:

     ``2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries.''

       (c) Statute of Limitations Amendment.--Section 3286 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``any offense'' and inserting ``any non-
     capital offense'';
       (2) striking ``36'' and inserting ``37'';
       (3) striking ``2331'' and inserting ``2332'';
       (4) striking ``2339'' and inserting ``2332a''; and
       (5) inserting ``2332b (acts of terrorism transcending 
     national boundaries),'' after ``(use of weapons of mass 
     destruction),''.
       (d) Presumptive Detention.--Section 3142(e) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or section 
     2332b'' after ``section 924(c)''.
       (e) Wiretap Amendment.--Section 2518(11)(b)(ii) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(A)'' before ``thwart'' and
       (2) inserting ``or (B) commit a violation of section 2332b 
     of this title'' after ``facilities''.

     SEC. 102. CONSPIRACY TO HARM PEOPLE AND PROPERTY OVERSEAS.

       (a) Section 956 of chapter 45 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property in 
              a foreign country

       ``(a)(1) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, conspires with one or more other persons, regardless 
     of where such other person or persons are located, to commit 
     at any place outside the United States an act that would 
     constitute the offense of murder, kidnaping, or maiming if 
     committed in the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States shall, if he or any such 
     other person commits an act within the jurisdiction of the 
     United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be 
     punished as provided in subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)(1) 
     of this section is--
       ``(A) imprisonment for any term of years of for life if the 
     offense is conspiracy to murder or kidnap; and
       ``(B) imprisonment for not more than thirty-five years if 
     the offense is conspiracy to maim.
       ``(b) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of 
     where such other person or persons are located, to injure or 
     destroy specific property situated within a foreign country 
     and belonging to a foreign government or to any political 
     subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, 
     or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield or other 
     public utility, public conveyance or public structure, or any 
     religious, educational or cultural property so situated, 
     shall, if he or any such other person commits an act within 
     the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of 
     the conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than twenty-five 
     years.''.
       (b) The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``956. Conspiracy to 
     injure property of foreign government.'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or 
     injure certain property in a foreign country.''.
       (c) Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``36'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``37'';
       (2) striking ``2331'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``2332'';
       (3) striking ``2339'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``2332a'';
       (4) striking ``of an escape'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``or an escape''; and
       (5) inserting ``956,'' before ``1114.''

     SEC. 103. CLARIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL 
                   JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN TERRORISM OFFENSES 
                   OVERSEAS.

       (a) Section 46502(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) in paragraph (1), striking ``and later found in the 
     United States'';
       (2) amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph 
     (1) if--
       ``(A) a national of the United States was aboard the 
     aircraft;
       ``(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or
       ``(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United 
     States.''; and
       (3) inserting a new paragraph (3) as follows:
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `national 
     of the United States' has the meaning prescribed in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)).''.
       [[Page S2507]] (b) Section 32(b) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``, if the offender is later found in the 
     United States,''; and
       (2) adding at the end the following two new paragraphs:
       ``(5) There is jurisdiction over an offense in this 
     subsection if--
       ``(A) a national of the United States was on board, or 
     would have been on board, the aircraft;
       ``(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or
       ``(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.
       ``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `national 
     of the United States' has the meaning prescribed in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)).''.
       (c) Section 1116 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) in subsection (b), adding at the end a new paragraph 
     (7) as follows:
       ``(7) `national of the United States' has the meaning 
     prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following:

     ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an 
     internationally protected person outside the
      United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction 
     over the offense if (1) the victim is a representative, 
     officer, employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an 
     offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an 
     offender is afterwards found in the United States.''.
       (d) Section 112 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) in subsection (c), inserting ``national of the United 
     States,'' before ``and''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following:

     ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an 
     internationally protected person outside the United States, 
     the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense 
     if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or 
     agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of 
     the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in 
     the United States.''.
       (e) Section 878 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) in subsection (c), inserting ``national of the United 
     States,'' before ``and''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following:

     ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an 
     internationally protected person outside the United States, 
     the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense 
     if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or 
     agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of 
     the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in 
     the United States.''.
       (f) Section 1201(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following:

     ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an 
     internationally protected person outside the United States, 
     the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense 
     if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or 
     agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of 
     the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in 
     the United States.''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``For purposes of this subsection, the term `national of the 
     United States' has the meaning prescribed in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)).''.
       (g) Section 37(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``the offender is later 
     found in the United States''; and
       (2) by inserting ``; or (B) an offender or a victim is a 
     national of the United States (as defined in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)))'' after ``the offender is later found in the 
     United States''.
       (h) Section 178 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) striking the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(5) the term `national of the United States' has the 
     meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''.

                 TITLE II--IMMIGRATION LAW IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 201. ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES.

       (a) Findings and Purpose.--
       (1) The Congress hereby finds that--
       (A) international terrorism is a serious and deadly problem 
     which threatens the interests of this nation overseas and 
     within our territory;
       (B) until recently, United States asylum processing 
     procedures have been complicated and often duplicative, 
     providing a powerful incentive for individuals, including 
     terrorists, without a genuine claim, to apply for asylum and 
     remain in the United States;
       (C) while most aliens justify the trust placed in them by 
     our immigration policies, a dangerous few utilized access to 
     the United States to create significant infrastructures and 
     cells in the United States in order to carry out their 
     terrorist activity to the detriment of the nation's national 
     security and foreign policy interests;
       (D) the bombing of the World Trade Center exemplifies the 
     danger posed to the United States and its citizens by alien 
     terrorists;
       (E) similarly, some foreign terrorist organizations utilize 
     associated aliens within the United States to raise funds to 
     facilitate their overseas terrorist acts against U.S. 
     nationals as well as against foreign governments and their 
     citizens; and
       (F) current immigration laws and procedures are not 
     effective in addressing the alien terrorist problem, as they 
     require the government to place sensitive intelligence 
     sources and methods at risk and allow the alien to remain 
     within the United States for the prolonged period necessary 
     to pursue a deportation action. Moreover, under the current 
     statutory framework a few high ranking members of terrorist 
     organizations have been naturalized as United States citizens 
     because denial of such naturalizations would have 
     necessitated public disclosure of highly classified sources 
     and methods.
       (2) The purpose of this section is to provide procedures 
     which, consistent with principles of fundamental fairness, 
     will allow the government to deport alien terrorists promptly 
     without compromising intelligence sources and methods.
       (b) Alien Removal Procedures.--The Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of the table of contents the 
     following:

             ``TITLE V--ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES.

     ``Sec. 501. Applicability
     ``Sec. 502. Special removal hearing
     ``Sec. 503. Designation of judges
     ``Sec. 504. Miscellaneous provisions''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new title:

             ``TITLE V--ALIEN TERRORIST REMOVAL PROCEDURES

                            ``Applicability

       ``Sec. 501. (a) The provisions of this title may be 
     followed in the discretion of the Department of Justice 
     whenever the Department of Justice has classified information 
     that an alien described in paragraph 4(B) of section 241(a), 
     as amended, is subject to deportation because of such 
     section. For purposes of this title, the terms `classified 
     information' and `national security' shall have the meaning 
     prescribed in section 1 of the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. III 1.
       ``(b) Whenever an official of the Department of Justice 
     files, under section 502, an application with the court 
     established under section 503 for authorization to seek 
     removal pursuant to the provisions of this title, the alien's 
     rights regarding removal and expulsion shall be governed 
     solely by the provisions of this title. Except as they are 
     specifically referenced, no other provisions of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act shall be applicable. An alien 
     subject to removal under these provisions shall have no right 
     of discovery of information derived from electronic 
     surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq.) or otherwise for 
     national security purposes. Nor shall such alien have the 
     right to seek suppression of evidence. Further, the 
     government is authorized to use, in the removal proceedings, 
     the fruits of electronic surveillance and/or unconsented 
     physical searches authorized under the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act without regard to subsections 106(c), (e), 
     (f), (g), and (h) of that Act. The provisions and 
     requirements of section 3504 of title 18, United States Code, 
     shall not apply to procedures under this title.
       ``(c) This title is enacted in response to findings of 
     Congress that aliens described in paragraph 4(B) of section 
     241(a), as amended, represent a unique threat to the security 
     of the United States. It is the intention of Congress that 
     such aliens be promptly removed from the United States 
     following--
       ``(1) a judicial determination of probable cause to believe 
     that such person is such an alien; and
       ``(2) a judicial determination pursuant to the provisions 
     of this title that an alien is removable on the grounds that 
     he or she is an alien described in paragraph 4(B) of section 
     241(a), as amended.

     The Congress furthers intends that, other than as provided by 
     this title, such aliens shall not be given a deportation 
     hearing and are ineligible for any discretionary relief from 
     deportation or for relief under section 243(h).

                       ``Special Removal Hearing

       ``Sec. 502. (a) Whenever removal of an alien is sought 
     pursuant to the provisions of this title, a written 
     application upon oath or affirmation shall be submitted in 
     camera and ex parte to the court established under section 
     503 for an order authorizing such a procedure. Each 
     application shall require the approval of the Attorney 
     General or the Deputy Attorney General based upon his finding 
     that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such 
     application as set forth in this title. Each application 
     shall include--
       ``(1) the identity of the Department of Justice attorney 
     making the application;
       ``(2) the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy 
     Attorney General for the making of the application;
       ``(3) the identity of the alien for whom authorization for 
     the special removal procedure is sought; and
       [[Page S2508]] ``(4) a statement of the facts and 
     circumstances relied on by the Department of Justice to 
     establish that--
       ``(A) the alien is an alien as described in paragraph 4(B) 
     of section 241(a), as amended, and is physically present in 
     the United States; and
       ``(B) with respect to such alien, adherence to the 
     provisions of title II regarding the deportation of aliens 
     would pose a risk to the national security of the United 
     States.
       ``(b)(1) The application shall be filed under seal with the 
     court established under section 503. The Attorney General may 
     take into custody any alien with respect to whom such an 
     application has been filed and, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, may retain such an alien in custody in 
     accordance with the procedures authorized by this title.
       ``(2) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
     (hereafter referred to as resident alien) shall be entitled 
     to a release hearing before the judge assigned to the special 
     removal case pursuant to section 503(a). The resident alien 
     shall be granted release pending the special removal hearing, 
     upon such terms and conditions prescribed by the court 
     (including the posting of any monetary amount), if the alien 
     demonstrates to the court that the alien, if released, is not 
     likely to flee and that the alien's release will not endanger 
     national security or the safety of any person or the 
     community. The judge may consider classified information 
     submitted in camera and ex parte in making his determination.
       ``(C) In accordance with the rules of the court established 
     under section 503, the judge shall consider the application 
     and may consider other information, including classified 
     information, presented under oath or affirmation at an in 
     camera and ex parte hearing on the application. A verbatim 
     record shall be maintained of such a hearing. The application 
     and any other evidence shall be considered by a single judge 
     of that court who shall enter an ex parte order as requested 
     if he finds, on the basis of the facts submitted in the 
     application and any other information provided by the 
     Department of Justice at the in camera and ex parte hearing, 
     there is probable cause to believe that--
       ``(1) the alien who is the subject of the application has 
     been correctly identified and is an alien as described in 
     paragraph 4(B) of section 241(a), as amended; and
       ``(2) adherence to the provisions of title II regarding the 
     deportation of the identified alien would pose a risk to the 
     national security of the United States.
       ``(d) (1) In any case in which the application for the 
     order is denied, the judge shall prepare a written statement 
     of his reasons for the denial and the Department of Justice 
     may seek a review of the denial by the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by notice of 
     appeal which must be filed within 20 days. In such a case the 
     entire record of the proceeding shall be transmitted to the 
     Court of Appeals
      under seal and the Court of Appeals shall hear the matter ex 
     parte.
       ``(2) If the Department of Justice does not seek review, 
     the alien shall be released from custody, unless such alien 
     may be arrested and taken into custody pursuant to title II 
     as an alien subject to deportation, in which case such alien 
     shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of this 
     Act concerning the deportation of aliens.
       ``(3) If the application for the order is denied because 
     the judge has not found probable cause to believe that the 
     alien who is the subject of the application has been 
     correctly identified or is an alien as described in paragraph 
     4(B) of section 241(a), as amended, and the Department of 
     Justice seeks review, the alien shall be released from 
     custody unless such alien may be arrested and taken into 
     custody pursuant to title II as an alien subject to 
     deportation, in which case such alien shall be treated in 
     accordance with the provisions of this Act concerning the 
     deportation of aliens simultaneously with the application of 
     this title.
       ``(4) If the application for the order is denied because, 
     although the judge found probable cause to believe that the 
     alien who is the subject of the application has been 
     correctly identified and is an alien as described in 
     paragraph 4(B) of section 241(a), as amended, the judge has 
     found that there is not probable cause to believe that 
     adherence to the provisions of title II regarding the 
     deportation of the identified alien would pose a risk to the 
     national security of the United States, the judge shall 
     release the alien from custody subject to the least 
     restrictive condition or combination of conditions of release 
     described in section 3142(b) and (c)(1)(B)(i) through (xiv) 
     of title 18, United States Code, that will reasonably assure 
     the appearance of the alien at any future proceeding pursuant 
     to this title and will not endanger the safety of any other 
     person or the community; but if the judge finds no such 
     condition or combination of conditions the alien shall remain 
     in custody until the completion of any appeal authorized by 
     this title. The provisions of sections 3145 through 3148 of 
     title 18, United States Code, pertaining to review and appeal 
     of a release or detention order, penalties for failure to 
     appear, penalties for an offense committed while on release, 
     and sanctions for violation of a release condition shall 
     apply to an alien to whom the previous sentence applies and--
       ``(A) for purposes of section 3145 of such title an appeal 
     shall be taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit; and
       ``(B) for purposes of section 3146 of such title the alien 
     shall be considered released in connection with a charge of 
     an offense punishable by life imprisonment.
       ``(e)(1) In any case in which the application for the order 
     authorizing the special procedures of this title is approved, 
     the judge who granted the order shall consider each item of 
     classified information the Department of Justice proposes to 
     introduce in camera and ex parte at the special removal 
     hearing and shall order the introduction of such information 
     pursuant to subsection (j) if he determines the information 
     to be relevant. The Department of Justice shall prepare a 
     written summary of such classified information which does not 
     pose a risk to national security and the judge shall approve 
     the summary if he finds the summary is sufficient to inform 
     the alien of the general nature of the evidence that he is an 
     alien as described in paragraph 4(B) of section 241(a), as 
     amended, and to permit the alien to prepare a defense. The 
     Department of Justice shall cause to be delivered to the 
     alien a copy of the summary.
       ``(2) If the written summary is not approved by the court, 
     the Department shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to 
     correct the deficiencies identified by the court and submit a 
     revised summary. Thereafter, if the written summary is not 
     approved by the court, the special removal hearing shall be 
     terminated unless the court issues a finding that--
       ``(A) the continued presence of the alien in the United 
     States, or
       ``(B) the provision of the required summary

     would likely cause serious and irreparable harm to the 
     national security or death or serious bodily injury to any 
     person. If such finding is issued, the special removal 
     hearing shall continue, the Department of Justice shall cause 
     to be delivered to the alien a statement that no summary is 
     possible, and the classified information submitted in camera 
     and ex parte may be used pursuant to subsection (j).
       ``(3) The Department of Justice may take an interlocutory 
     appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
     of Columbia Circuit of--
       ``(A) any determination by the judge pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(I) concerning whether an item of evidence may be 
     introduced in camera and ex parte; or
       ``(II) concerning the contents of any summary of evidence 
     to be introduced in camera and ex parte prepared pursuant to 
     paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) the refusal of the court to make the finding 
     permitted by paragraph (2);

     In any interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to this paragraph, 
     the entire record, including any proposed order of the judge 
     or summary of evidence, shall be transmitted to the Court of 
     Appeals under seal and the matter shall be heard ex parte. 
     The Court of Appeals shall consider the appeal as 
     expeditiously as possible.
       ``(f) In any case in which the application for the order is 
     approved, the special removal hearing authorized by this 
     section shall be conducted for the purpose of determining if 
     the alien to whom the order pertains should be removed from 
     the United States on the grounds that he is an alien as 
     described in paragraph 4(b) of section 241(a), as amended. In 
     accordance with subsection (e), the alien shall be given 
     reasonable notice of the nature of the charges against him 
     and a general account of the basis for the charges. The alien 
     shall be given notice, reasonable under all the 
     circumstances, of the time and place at which the hearing 
     will be held. The hearing shall be held as expeditiously as 
     possible.
       ``(g) The special removal hearing shall be held before the 
     same judge who granted the order pursuant to subsection (e) 
     unless that judge is deemed unavailable due to illness or 
     disability by the chief judge of the court established 
     pursuant to section 503, or has died, in which case the chief 
     judge shall assign another judge to conduct the special 
     removal hearing. A decision by the chief judge pursuant to 
     the preceding sentence shall not be subject to review by 
     either the alien or the Department of Justice.
       ``(h) The special removal hearing shall be open to the 
     public. The alien shall have a right to be present at such 
     hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien 
     financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to 
     have counsel assigned to represent him. Such counsel shall be 
     appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing 
     representation for any person financially unable to obtain 
     adequate representation for the district in which the hearing 
     is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18, 
     United States Code. All provisions of that section shall 
     apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum amount of 
     compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a felony was 
     charged. The alien may be called as a witness by the 
     Department of Justice. The alien shall have a right to 
     introduce evidence on his own behalf. Except as provided in 
     subsection (j), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity 
     to examine the evidence against him and to cross-examine any 
     witness. A verbatim record of the proceedings and of all 
     testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a hearing 
     shall be kept. The decision of the judge shall be based only 
     on the evidence introduced at the hearing, including evidence 
     introduced under subsection (j).
       ``(i) At any time prior to the conclusion of the special 
     removal hearing, either the alien or the Department of 
     Justice may request 
     [[Page S2509]] the judge to issue a subpoena for the presence 
     of a named witness (which subpoena may also command the 
     person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, 
     documents, or other objects designated therein) upon a 
     satisfactory showing that the presence of the witness is 
     necessary for the determination of any material matter. Such 
     a request may be made ex parte except that the judge shall 
     inform the Department of Justice of any request for a 
     subpoena by the alien for a witness or material if compliance 
     with such a subpoena would reveal evidence or the source of 
     evidence which has been introduced, or which the Department 
     of Justice has received permission to introduce, in camera 
     and ex parte pursuant to subsection (j), and the Department 
     of Justice shall be given a reasonable opportunity to oppose 
     the issuance of such a subpoena. If an application for a 
     subpoena by the alien also makes a showing that the alien is 
     financially unable to pay for the attendance of a witness so 
     requested, the court may order the costs incurred by the 
     process and the fees of the witness so subpoenaed to be paid 
     for from funds appropriated for the enforcement of title II. 
     A subpoena under this subsection may be served anywhere in 
     the United States. A witness subpoenaed under this subsection 
     shall receive the same fees and expenses as a
      witness subpoenaed in connection with a civil proceeding in 
     a court of the United States. Nothing in this subsection 
     is intended to allow an alien to have access to classified 
     information.
       ``(j) When classified information has been summarized 
     pursuant to subsection (e)(1) or where a finding has been 
     made under subsection (e)(2) that no summary is possible, 
     classified information shall be introduced (either in writing 
     or through testimony) in camera and ex parte and neither the 
     alien nor the public shall be informed of such evidence or 
     its sources other than through reference to the summary 
     provided pursuant to subsection (e)(1). Notwithstanding the 
     previous sentence, the Department of Justice may, in its 
     discretion and, in the case of classified information, after 
     coordination with the originating agency, elect to introduce 
     such evidence in open session.
       ``(k) Evidence introduced at the special removal hearing, 
     either in open session or in camera and ex parte, may, in the 
     discretion of the Department of Justice, include all or part 
     of the information presented under subsections (a) through 
     (c) used to obtain the order for the hearing under this 
     section.
       ``(l) Following the receipt of evidence, the attorneys for 
     the Department of Justice and for the alien shall be given 
     fair opportunity to present argument as to whether the 
     evidence is sufficient to justify the removal of the alien. 
     The attorney for the Department of Justice shall open the 
     argument. The attorney for the alien shall be permitted to 
     reply. The attorney for the Department of Justice shall then 
     be permitted to reply in rebuttal. The judge may allow any 
     part of the argument that refers to evidence received in 
     camera and ex parte to be heard in camera and ex parte.
       ``(m) The Department of Justice has the burden of showing 
     by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is subject to 
     removal because he is an alien as described in paragraph 4(B) 
     of subsection 241(a) of this Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)(B)), as 
     amended. If the judge finds that the Department of Justice 
     has met this burden, the judge shall order the alien removed 
     and, if the alien is a resident alien who was released 
     pending the special removal hearing, order the Attorney 
     General to take the alien into custody.
       ``(n)(1) At the time of rendering a decision as to whether 
     the alien shall be removed, the judge shall prepare a written 
     order containing a statement of facts found and conclusions 
     of law. Any portion of the order that would reveal the 
     substance or source of information received in camera and ex 
     parte pursuant to subsection (j) shall not be made available 
     to the alien or the public.
       ``(2) The decision of the judge may be appealed by either 
     the alien or the Department of Justice to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
     notice of appeal which must be filed within 20 days, during 
     which time such order shall not be executed. In any case 
     appealed pursuant to this subsection, the entire record shall 
     be transmitted to the Court of Appeals and information 
     received pursuant to subsection (j), and any portion of the 
     judge's order that would reveal the substance or source of 
     such information shall be transmitted under seal. The Court 
     of Appeals shall consider the case as expeditiously as 
     possible.
       ``(3) In an appeal to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 
     either subsection (d) or (e) of this section, the Court of 
     Appeals shall review questions of law de novo, but a prior 
     finding on any question of fact shall not be set aside unless 
     such finding was clearly erroneous.
       ``(o) If the judge decides pursuant to subsection (n) that 
     the alien should not be removed, the alien shall be released 
     from custody unless such alien may be arrested and taken into 
     custody pursuant to title II of this Act as an alien subject 
     to deportation, in which case, for purposes of detention, 
     such alien may be treated in accordance with the provisions 
     of this Act concerning the deportation of aliens.
       ``(p) Following a decision by the Court of Appeals pursuant 
     to either subsection (d) or (n), either the alien or the 
     Department of Justice may petition the Supreme Court for a 
     writ of certiorari. In any such case, any information 
     transmitted to the Court of Appeals under seal shall, if such 
     information is also submitted to the Supreme Court, be 
     transmitted under seal. Any order of removal shall not be 
     stayed pending disposition of a writ of certiorari except as 
     provided by the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Supreme 
     Court.
       ``(q) The Department of Justice retains the right to 
     dismiss a removal action at any stage of the proceeding.
       ``(r) Nothing in this section shall prevent the United 
     States from seeking protective orders and/or asserting 
     privileges ordinarily available to the United States to 
     protect against the disclosure of classified
      information, including the invocation of the military and 
     state secrets privileges.

                        ``Designation of Judges

       ``Sec. 503. (a) The Chief Justice of the United States 
     shall publicly designate five district court judges from five 
     of the United States judicial circuits who shall constitute a 
     court which shall have jurisdiction to conduct all matters 
     and proceedings authorized by section 502. The Chief Justice 
     shall publicly designate one of the judges so appointed as 
     the chief judge. The chief judge shall promulgate rules to 
     facilitate the functioning of the court and shall be 
     responsible for assigning the consideration of cases to the 
     various judges.
       ``(b) Proceedings under section 502 shall be conducted as 
     expeditiously as possible. The Chief Justice, in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence and other appropriate federal officials, shall, 
     consistent with the objectives of this title, provide for the 
     maintenance of appropriate security measures for applications 
     for ex parte orders to conduct the special removal hearings 
     authorized by section 502, the orders themselves, and 
     evidence received in camera and ex parte, and for such other 
     actions as are necessary to protect information concerning 
     matters before the court from harming the national security 
     of the United States.
       ``(c) Each judge designated under this section shall serve 
     for a term of five years and shall be eligible for 
     redesignation, except that the four associate judges first 
     designated under subsection (a) shall be designated for terms 
     of from one to four years so that the term of one judge shall 
     expire each year.

                       ``Miscellaneous Provisions

       ``Sec. 504. (a)(1) Following a determination pursuant to 
     this title that an alien shall be removed, and after the 
     conclusion of any judicial review thereof, the Attorney 
     General may retain the alien in custody or, if the alien was 
     released pursuant to subsection 502(o), may return the alien 
     to custody, and shall cause the alien to be transported to 
     any country which the alien shall designate provided such 
     designation does not, in the judgment of the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, impair 
     the obligation of the United States under any treaty 
     (including a treaty pertaining to extradition) or otherwise 
     adversely affect the foreign policy of the United States.
       ``(2) If the alien refuses to choose a country to which he 
     wishes to be transported, or if the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that 
     removal of the alien to the country so selected would impair 
     a treaty obligation or adversely affect United States foreign 
     policy, the Attorney General shall cause the alien to be 
     transported to any country willing to receive such alien.
       ``(3) Before an alien is transported out of the United 
     States pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) or pursuant to an 
     order of exclusion because such alien is excludable under 
     paragraph 212(a)(3)(B) of this Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), 
     as amended, he shall be photographed and fingerprinted, and 
     shall be advised of the provisions of subsection 276(b) of 
     this Act (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)).
       ``(4) If no country is willing to receive such an alien, 
     the Attorney General may, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, retain the alien in custody. The Attorney General, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, shall make periodic 
     efforts to reach agreement with other countries to accept 
     such an alien and at least every six months shall provide to 
     the alien a written report on his efforts. Any alien in 
     custody pursuant to this subsection shall be released from 
     custody solely at the discretion of the Attorney General and 
     subject to such conditions as the Attorney General shall deem 
     appropriate. The determinations and actions of the Attorney 
     General pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to 
     judicial review, including application for a writ of habeas 
     corpus, except for a claim by the alien that continued 
     detention violates his rights under the Constitution. 
     Jurisdiction over any such challenge shall lie exclusively in 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
       ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), 
     the Attorney General may hold in abeyance the removal of an 
     alien who has been ordered removed pursuant to this title to 
     allow the trial of such alien on any federal or State 
     criminal charge and the service of any sentence of 
     confinement resulting from such a trial.
       ``(2) Pending the commencement of any service of a sentence 
     of confinement by an alien described in
      paragraph (1), such an alien shall remain in the custody of 
     the Attorney General, unless the Attorney General 
     determines that temporary release of the 
     [[Page S2510]] alien to the custody of State authorities for 
     confinement in a State facility is appropriate and would not 
     endanger national security or public safety.
       ``(3) Following the completion of a sentence of confinement 
     by an alien described in paragraph (1) or following the 
     completion of State criminal proceedings which do not result 
     in a sentence of confinement of an alien released to the 
     custody of State authorities pursuant to paragraph (2), such 
     an alien shall be returned to the custody of the Attorney 
     General who shall proceed to carry out the provisions of 
     subsection (a) concerning removal of the alien.
       ``(c) For purposes of section 751 and 752 of title 18, 
     United States Code, an alien in the custody of the Attorney 
     General pursuant to this title shall be subject to the 
     penalties provided by those sections in relation to a person 
     committed to the custody of the Attorney General by virtue of 
     an arrest on a charge of felony.
       ``(d)(1) An alien in the custody of the Attorney General 
     pursuant to this title shall be given reasonable opportunity 
     to communicate with and receive visits from members of his 
     family, and to contact, retain, and communicate with an 
     attorney.
       ``(2) An alien in the custody of the Attorney General 
     pursuant to this title shall have the right to contact an 
     appropriate diplomatic or consular official of the alien's 
     country of citizenship or nationality or of any country 
     providing representation services therefore. The Attorney 
     General shall notify the appropriate embassy, mission, or 
     consular office of the alien's detention.''.
       (c) Additional Amendments to INA.--(1) Subsection 106(b) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following sentence: 
     ``Jurisdiction to review an order entered pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 235(c) of this Act concerning an alien 
     excludable under paragraph 3(B) of subsection 212(a) (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)), as amended, shall rest exclusively in the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit.''.
       (2) Section 276(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended by deleting the word ``or'' at 
     the end of subparagraph (b)(1), by replacing the period at 
     the end of subparagraph (b)(2) with a semicolon followed by 
     the word ``or'', and by adding at the end of paragraph (b) 
     the following subparagraph: ``(3) who has been excluded from 
     the United States pursuant to subsection 235(c) of this Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1225(c)) because such alien was excludable under 
     paragraph 3(B) of subsection 212(a) thereof (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(3)(B)), as amended, or who has been removed from the 
     United States pursuant to the provisions of title V of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, and who thereafter, without 
     the permission of the Attorney General, enters the United 
     States or attempts to do so shall be fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, and imprisoned for a period of ten years 
     which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other 
     sentence.''
       (3) Section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)) is amended by striking from the end of 
     subparagraph 9 the semicolon and the word ``and'' and 
     inserting a period in lieu thereof, and by striking 
     subparagraph 10.
       (d) Effective Date.--The provisions of this Act shall be 
     effective upon enactment, and shall apply to all aliens 
     without regard to the date of entry or attempted entry into 
     the United States.

     SEC. 202. CHANGES TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT TO 
                   FACILITATE REMOVAL OF ALIEN TERRORISTS.

       (a) Section 212(a)3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Terrorism Activities
       ``(i) In general
       Any alien who
       ``(I) has engaged in a terrorism activity, or
       ``(II) a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or 
     has reason to believe, is likely to engage after entry in any 
     terrorism activity (as defined in clause (iii)),

     is excludable. An alien who is a representative of the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization, or any terrorist 
     organization designated by proclamation by the President 
     after he has found such organization to be detrimental to the 
     interests of the Untied States, is considered, for purposes 
     of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorism activity. As used 
     in clause (B)(i), the term ``representative'' includes an 
     officer, official or spokesman of the organization and any 
     person who directs, counsels, commands or induces such 
     organization or its
      members to engage in terrorism activity. For purposes of 
     subparagraph (3)(B)(i), the determination by the Secretary 
     of State or the Attorney General that an alien is a 
     representative of the organization shall be controlling 
     and shall not be subject to review by any court.
       ``(ii) Terrorism activity defined.--As used in this Act, 
     the term `terrorism activity' means any activity which is 
     unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed 
     (or which, if it had been 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 hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance 
     (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
       ``(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, 
     injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to 
     compel a third person (including a governmental organization) 
     to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or 
     implicit condition for the release of the individual seized 
     or detained.
       ``(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected 
     person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United 
     States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
       ``(IV) An assassination.
       ``(V) The use of any--
       ``(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon 
     or device, or
       ``(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon (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.
       ``(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the 
     foregoing.
       ``(iii) Engage in terrorism activity defined.--As used in 
     this Act, the term `engage in terrorism activity' means to 
     commit, in an individual capacity or as a member of an 
     organization, an act of terrorism activity or an act which 
     the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material 
     support to any individual, organization, or government which 
     the actor knows or reasonably should know has committed or 
     plans to commit terrorism activity, including any of the 
     following acts:
       ``(I) The preparation or planning of terrorism activity.
       ``(II) The gathering of information on potential targets 
     for terrorism 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.
       ``(IV) The soliciting of funds or other things of value for 
     terrorism 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 terrorism activity.
       ``(iv) Terrorist organization defined.--As used in this 
     Act, the term `terrorist organization' means any organization 
     engaged, or which has a significant subgroup which engages, 
     in terrorism activity, regardless of any legitimate 
     activities conducted by the organization or its subgroups.
       ``(v) Terrorism defined.--As used in this Act, the term 
     `terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated 
     violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.''.
       (b) Section 241(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(4)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) Terrorism activities.--Any alien who has engaged, is 
     engaged, or at any time after entry engages in any terrorism 
     activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)).''.
       (c) Section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding after ``custody of the 
     Service.'' this new sentence:

     ``The limited production authorized by this provision shall 
     not extend to the records of any other agency or department 
     of the Government or to any documents that do not pertain to 
     the respondent's entry.''.
       (d) Section 242(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(3)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``Government'' the following:

     ``. In the case of an alien who is not lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence and notwithstanding the provisions of any 
     other law, reasonable opportunity shall not comprehend access 
     to classified information, whether or not introduced in 
     evidence against him. The provisions and requirements of 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 3504 and 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq. shall not 
     apply in such cases''.''

     SEC. 203. ACCESS TO CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INS FILES THROUGH 
                   COURT ORDER.

       (a) Section 245A(c)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(c)(5) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(i)'' after ``except the Attorney 
     General''; and
       (2) inserting after ``Title 13'' the following:

     ``and (ii) may authorize an application to a Federal court of 
     competent jurisdiction for, and a judge of such court may 
     grant, an order authorizing disclosure of information 
     contained in the application of the alien to be used:
       ``(I) for identification of the alien when there is reason 
     to believe that the alien has been killed or severely 
     incapacitated; or
       ``(II) for criminal law enforcement purposes against the 
     alien whose application is to be disclosed if the alleged 
     criminal activity occurred after the legalization application 
     was filed and such activity poses either an immediate risk to 
     life or to national security or would be prosecutable as an 
     aggravated felony, but without regard to the length of 
     sentence that could be imposed on the applicant''.
       (b)(1) Section 210(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1160(b)(5)) is amended by inserting ``, except 
     as allowed by a court order issued pursuant to paragraph (6) 
     of this subsection'' after ``consent of the alien''.
       (2) Section 210(b)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1160(b)(6)) is amended by inserting the 
     following sentence before ``Anyone who uses'';

     ``Except the Attorney General may authorize an application to 
     a Federal Court of competent jurisdiction for, and a judge of 
     such 
     [[Page S2511]] court may grant, an order authorizing 
     disclosure of information contained in the application of the 
     alien to be used:
       ``(E) for identification of the alien when there is reason 
     to believe that the alien has been killed or severely 
     incapacitated; or
       ``(F) for criminal law enforcement purposes against the 
     alien whose application is to be disclosed if the alleged 
     criminal activity occurred after the special agricultural 
     worker application was filed and such activity poses either 
     an immediate risk to life or to national security or would be 
     prosecutable as an aggravated felony, but without regard to 
     the length of sentence that could be imposed on the 
     applicant.''.

            TITLE III--CONTROLS OVER TERRORIST FUND-RAISING

     SEC. 301. TERRORIST FUND-RAISING PROHIBITED.

       (a) Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     section:

``2339B. Fund-raising for terrorist organizations

       ``(a) Findings and Purpose.--
       ``(1) The Congress hereby finds that--
       ``(A) terrorism is a serious and deadly problem which 
     threatens the interests of the United States both overseas 
     and within our territory;
       ``(B) the nation's security interests are gravely impacted 
     by terrorist attacks carried out overseas against United 
     States Government facilities and officials, as well as 
     against other American citizens present in foreign countries;
       ``(C) United States foreign policy interests are profoundly 
     affected by terrorist acts overseas directed against foreign 
     governments and their people;
       ``(D) United States economic interests are significantly 
     impacted by terrorist attacks carried out in foreign 
     countries against United States citizens and businesses;
       ``(E) international cooperation is required for an 
     effective response to terrorism, as demonstrated by the 
     numerous multilateral conventions in force providing 
     universal
      prosecutive jurisdiction over persons involved in a variety 
     of terrorist acts, e.g., hostage taking, murder of an 
     internationally protected person, and aircraft piracy and 
     sabotage;
       ``(F) some foreign terrorist organizations, acting through 
     affiliated groups or individuals, raise significant funds 
     within the United States or use the United States as a 
     conduit for their receipt of funds raised in other nations; 
     and
       ``(G) the provision of funds to organizations that engage 
     in terrorism serves to facilitate their terrorist endeavors, 
     regardless of whether the funds, in whole or in part, are 
     intended or claimed to be used for non-violent purposes.
       ``(2) The purpose of this section is to provide the Federal 
     Government the fullest possible basis, consistent with the 
     Constitution, to prevent persons within the United States or 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from 
     providing funds, directly or indirectly, to foreign 
     organizations, including subordinate or affiliated persons, 
     designated by the President as engaging in terrorism, unless 
     authorized under this section.
       ``(b) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the President is authorized, under such regulations as 
     he may prescribe, to regulate or prohibit:
       ``(1) fund-raising or the provision of funds for use by or 
     for the benefit of any foreign organization, including 
     persons assisting such organization in fund-raising, that the 
     President has designated pursuant to subsection (c) as being 
     engaged in terrorism activities; or
       ``(2) financial transactions with any such foreign 
     organization,

     within the United States or by any person subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States anywhere.
       ``(c) Designation.--
       ``(1) Pursuant to the authority granted in subsection (b), 
     the President is authorized to designate any foreign 
     organization based on finding that--
       ``(A) the organization engages in terrorism activity as 
     defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(B)); and
       ``(B) the organization's terrorism activities threaten the 
     national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Pursuant to the authority granted in subsection (b), 
     the President is also authorized to designate persons which 
     are raising funds for, or acting for or on behalf of, any 
     organization designated pursuant to subsection (c)(1) above.
       ``(3) If the President finds that the conditions which were 
     the basis for any designation issued under this subsection 
     have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of 
     such designation, or that the national security, foreign 
     relations, or economic interests of the United States so 
     warrant, he may revoke such designation in whole or in part.
       ``(4) Any designation, or revocation thereof, issued 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be published in the Federal 
     Register and shall become effective immediately on 
     publication.
       ``(5) Any revocation of a designation shall not affect any 
     action or proceeding based on any conduct committed prior to 
     the effective date of such revocation.
       ``(6) Any finding made in my designation issued pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) of this subsection that a foreign organization 
     engages in terrorism activity shall be conclusive. No 
     question concerning the validity of the issuance of such 
     designation may be raised by a defendant in a criminal 
     prosecution as a defense in or as an objection to any trial 
     or hearing if such designation was issued and published in 
     the Federal Register in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(d) Prohibited Activities.--
       ``(1) Except as authorized pursuant to the procedures in 
     subsection (e), it shall be unlawful for any person within 
     United States, or any persons subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United States anywhere, to directly or indirectly, raise, 
     receive or collect on behalf of, or furnish, give, transmit, 
     transfer or provide funds to or for an organization or person 
     designated by the President under subsection (c), or to 
     attempt to do any of the foregoing.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person within the United 
     States or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States anywhere, acting for or on behalf of any 
     organization or person designated under subsection (c), (A) 
     to transmit, transfer, or receive any funds raised in 
     violation of subsection (d)(1) or (B) to transmit, transfer, 
     or dispose of any funds in which any organization or person 
     designated pursuant to subsection (c) has an interest.
       ``(e) Authorized Transactions.--
       ``(1) The Secretary shall publish regulations, consistent 
     with the provisions of this subsection, setting forth the 
     procedures to be followed by persons seeking to raise or 
     provide funds for an organization designated under subsection 
     (c)(1).
       ``(2) Any person within the United States, or any person 
     subject to the jurisdiction of United States anywhere, who 
     seeks to solicit funds for or to transfer funds to any 
     organization or person designated under subsection (c) shall, 
     regardless of whether it has an agency relationship with the 
     designated organization or person, first obtain a license 
     from the Secretary and may thereafter solicit funds or 
     transfer funds to a designated organization or person only as 
     permitted under the terms of a license issued by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall grant a license only after the 
     person establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
     that--
       ``(A) the funds are intended to be used exclusively for 
     religious, charitable, literary, or educational purposes; and
       ``(B) all recipient organizations in any fund-raising chain 
     have effective procedures in place to ensure that the funds 
     (i) will be used exclusively for religious, charitable, 
     literary, or educational purposes and (ii) will not be used 
     to offset a transfer of funds to be used in terrorist 
     activity.
       ``(4) Any person granted a license shall maintain books and 
     records, as required by the Secretary, that establish the 
     source of all funds it receives, expenses it incurs, and 
     disbursements it makes. Such books and records shall be made 
     available for inspection within two business days of a 
     request by the Secretary. Any person granted a license shall 
     also have an agreement with any recipient organization or 
     person that such organization's or person's books and 
     records, wherever located, must be made available for 
     inspection of the Secretary upon a request of the Secretary 
     at a place and time agreeable to that organization or person 
     and the Secretary.
       ``(5) The Secretary may also provide by regulation 
     procedures for the licensing of transactions otherwise 
     prohibited by this section in cases found by the Secretary to 
     be consistent with the statement of purpose in subsection 
     (a)(2).
       ``(f) Special Requirements for Financial Institutions.--
       ``(1) Except as authorized by the Secretary by means of 
     directives, regulations, or licenses, any financial 
     institution which becomes aware that it has possession of or 
     control over any funds in which an organization or person 
     designated under subsection (c) has an interest, shall--
       ``(A) retain possession of or maintain control over such 
     funds; and
       ``(B) report to the Secretary the existence of such funds 
     in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Any financial institution that fails to report to the 
     Secretary the existence of such funds shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty of $250 per day for each day that it fails to 
     report to the Secretary--
       ``(A) in the case of funds being possessed or control at 
     the time of the designation of the organization or person, 
     within ten days after the designation; and
       ``(B) in the case of funds whose possession of or control 
     over arose after the designation of the organization or 
     person, within ten days after the financial institution 
     obtained possession of or control over the funds.
       ``(g) Investigations.--
       ``Any investigation emanating from a possible violation of 
     this section, or of any license, order, or regulation issued 
     pursuant to this section, shall be conducted by the Attorney 
     General, except that investigations relating to (1) a 
     licensee's compliance with the terms of a license issued by 
     the Secretary pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, (2) 
     a financial institution's compliance with the requirements of 
     subsection (f) of this section, and (3) civil penalty 
     proceedings authorized pursuant to subsection (i) of this 
     section, shall be conducted in coordination with the Attorney 
     General by the office 
     [[Page S2512]] within the Department of the Treasury 
     responsible for licensing and civil penalty proceedings 
     authorized by this section. Any evidence of a criminal 
     violation of this section arising in the course of an 
     investigation by the Secretary or any other federal agency 
     shall be referred immediately to the Attorney General for 
     further investigation. The Attorney General shall timely 
     notify the Secretary of any action taken on referrals from 
     the Secretary, and may refer investigations to the Secretary 
     for remedial licensing or civil penalty action.
       ``(h) Recordkeeping and Reporting; Civil Procedures.--
       ``(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     exercising the authorities granted by this section, the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General may require any person to 
     keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form 
     of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any 
     act or transaction referred to
      in this section either before, during, or after the 
     completion thereof, or relative to any funds referred to 
     in this section, or as may be necessary to enforce the 
     terms of this section. In any case in which a report by a 
     person could be required under this subsection, the 
     Secretary or the Attorney General may require the 
     production of any books of account, records, contracts, 
     letters, memoranda, or other papers or documents, whether 
     maintained in hard copy or electronically, in the control 
     or custody of such person.
       ``(2) Compliance with any regulation, instruction, or 
     direction issued under this section shall to the extent 
     thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes 
     of the obligation of the person making the same. No person 
     shall be held liable in any court for or with respect to 
     anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the 
     administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, this 
     section, or any regulation, instruction, or direction issued 
     under this section.
       ``(3) In carrying out their function under this section, 
     the Secretary and the Attorney General may hold hearings, 
     sign and issue subpoenas, administer oaths, examine 
     witnesses, and receive evidence.
       ``(4) In the case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a 
     subpoena issued to, any person, the Attorney General may 
     invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the 
     jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried on or of 
     which the subpoenaed person is an inhabitant, or in which the 
     subpoenaed person carries on business or may be found, to 
     compel compliance with the subpoena. The court may issue an 
     order requiring the subpoenaed person to appear before the 
     agency issuing the subpoena, or other order or direction, to 
     produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching 
     the matter under investigation. Any failure to obey the order 
     of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt 
     thereof. All process in any such case may be served in any 
     judicial district in which such person may be found.
       ``(i) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (d) 
     shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for up to 10 
     years, or both.
       ``(2)(A) Any person who fails to maintain or to make 
     available to the Secretary upon his request or demand the 
     books or records required by subsection (e), or by 
     regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty of $50,000 or twice the amount of money which 
     would have been documented had the books and records been 
     properly maintained, whichever is greater.
       ``(B) Any person who fails to take the actions required of 
     financial institutions pursuant to subsection (f)(1), or by 
     regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be subject to a 
     civil penalty of $50,000 per violation, or twice the amount 
     of money of which the financial institution was required to 
     retain possession or control, whichever is greater.
       ``(C) except as otherwise specified in this section, any 
     person who violates any license, order, direction, or 
     regulation issued pursuant to this section shall be subject 
     to a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation, or twice the 
     value of the violation, whichever is greater.
       ``(3) Any person who intentionally fails to maintain or to 
     make available to the Secretary the books or records required 
     by subsection (e), or by regulations promulgated thereunder, 
     shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for up to five 
     years, or both.
       ``(4) Any organization convicted of an offense under (h) 
     (1) or (3) of this section shall, upon conviction, forfeit 
     any charitable designation it might have received under the 
     Internal Revenue Code.
       ``(j) Injunction.--
       ``(1) Whenever it appears to the Secretary or the Attorney 
     General that any person is engaged in, or is about to engage 
     in, any act which constitutes, or would constitute, a 
     violation of this section, the Attorney General may initiate 
     civil action in a district court of the United States to 
     enjoin such violation.
       ``(2) A proceeding under this subsection is governed by the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except that, if an 
     indictment has been returned against the respondent, 
     discovery is governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure.
       ``(k) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under 
     this section.
       ``(l) Classified Information in Civil Proceedings Brought 
     by the United States.--
       ``(1) Discovery of classified information by defendants.--A 
     court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United 
     States to delete specified items of classified information 
     from documents to be introduced into evidence and/or made 
     available to the defendant through discovery under the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to substitute a summary of 
     the information for such classified documents, or to 
     substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the 
     classified information would tend to prove. The court shall 
     permit the United States to make a request for such 
     authorization in the form of a written statement to be 
     inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order 
     granting relief
      following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the 
     statement of the United States shall be sealed and 
     preserved in the records of the court to be made available 
     to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If the 
     court enters an order denying relief to the United States 
     under this provision, the United States may take an 
     immediate, interlocutory appeal in accordance with the 
     provisions of paragraph (3) of this subsection. In the 
     event of such an appeal, the entire text of the underlying 
     written statement of the United States, together with any 
     transcripts of arguments made ex parte to the court in 
     connection therewith, shall be maintained under seal and 
     delivered to the appellate court.
       ``(2) Introduction of classified information; precautions 
     by court
       ``(A) Exhibits.--The United States, in order to prevent 
     unnecessary or inadvertent disclosure of classified 
     information in a civil trial or other proceeding brought by 
     the United States under this section, may petition the court 
     ex parte to admit, in lieu of classified writings, recordings 
     or photographs, one or more of the following: (i) copies of 
     those items from which classified information has been 
     deleted, (ii) stipulations admitting relevant facts that 
     specific classified information would tend to prove, or (iii) 
     a summary of the specific classified information. The court 
     shall grant such a motion of the United States if it finds 
     that the redacted item, stipulation or summary will provide 
     the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his 
     defense as would disclosure of the specific classified 
     information.
       ``(B) Taking of trial testimony.--During the examination of 
     a witness in any civil proceeding brought by the United 
     States under this section, the United States may object to 
     any question or line of inquiry that may require the witness 
     to disclose classified information not previously found to be 
     admissible. Following such an objection, the court shall take 
     suitable action to determine whether the response is 
     admissible and, in doing so, shall take precautions to guard 
     against the compromise of any classified information. Such 
     action may include permitting the United States to provide 
     the court, ex parte, with a proffer of the witness's response 
     to the question or line of inquiry, and requiring the 
     defendant to provide the court with a proffer of the nature 
     of the information he seeks to elicit.
       ``(C) Appeal.--If the court enters an order denying relief 
     to the United States under this subsection, the United States 
     may take an immediate interlocutory appeal in accordance with 
     paragraph (3) of this subsection.
       ``(3) Interlocutory appeal
       ``(A) An interlocutory appeal by the United States shall 
     lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a 
     district court authorizing the disclosure of classified 
     information, imposing sanctions for nondisclosure of 
     classified information, or refusing a protective order sought 
     by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified 
     information.
       ``(B) An appeal taken pursuant to this section either 
     before or during trial shall be expedited by the court of 
     appeals. Prior to trial, an appeal shall be taken within ten 
     days after the decision or order appealed from and the trial 
     shall not commence until the appeal is resolved. If an appeal 
     is taken during trial, the trial court shall adjourn the 
     trial until the appeal is resolved and the court of appeals 
     (1) shall hear argument on such appeal within four days of 
     the adjournment of the trial, (2) may dispense with written 
     briefs other than the supporting materials previously 
     submitted to the trial court, (3) shall render its decision 
     within four days of argument on appeal, and (4) may dispense 
     with the issuance of a written opinion in rendering its 
     decision. Such appeal and decision shall not affect the right 
     of the defendant, in a subsequent appeal from a final 
     judgment, to claim as error reversal by the trial court on 
     remand of a ruling appealed from during trial.
       ``(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent the United 
     States from seeking protective orders and/or asserting 
     privileges ordinarily available to the United States to 
     protect against the disclosure of classified information, 
     including the invocation of the military and state secrets 
     privilege.
       ``(m) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term--
       ``(1) `classified information' means any information or 
     material that has been determined by the United States 
     Government pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or 
     regulation, to require protection against unauthorized 
     disclosure for reasons of national security and any 
     restricted data, as defined in paragraph r. of section 11 of 
     the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y));
       ``(2) `financial institution' has the meaning prescribed in 
     section 5312(a)(2) of title 31,
     [[Page S2513]] United States Code, including any regulations 
     promulgated thereunder;``(3) `funds' includes coin or 
     currency of the United States or any other country, 
     traveler's checks, personal checks, bank checks, money 
     orders, stocks, bonds, debentures, drafts, letters of credit, 
     any other negotiable instrument, and any electronic 
     representation of any of the foregoing;
       ``(4) `national security' means the national defense and 
     foreign relations of the United States;
       ``(5) `person' includes an individual, partnership, 
     association, group, corporation or other organization;
       ``(6) `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury; and
       ``(7) `United States', when used in a geographical sense, 
     includes all commonwealths, territories and possessions of 
     the United States.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 113B of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following:

``2339B. Fund-raising for terrorists organizations''.

       (c) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)), as amended by 
     section 202(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting 
     after the phrase ``Palestine Liberation Organization'' the 
     following: ``, an organization designated by the President 
     under section 2339B of title 18, United States Code''.
       (d) The provisions of section 2339B(k) of title 18, United 
     States Code, (relating to classified information in civil 
     proceedings brought by the United States) shall also be 
     applicable to civil proceedings brought by the United States 
     under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

       TITLE IV--CONVENTION ON THE MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives for Detection Act.''.
       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) plastic explosives were used by terrorists in the 
     bombings of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988 and UTA flight 
     772 in September 1989;
       (2) plastic explosives can be used with little likelihood 
     of detection for acts of unlawful interference with civil 
     aviation, maritime navigation and other modes of 
     transportation;
       (3) the criminal use of plastic explosives places innocent 
     lives in jeopardy, endangers national security, affects 
     domestic tranquility, and gravely affects interstate and 
     foreign commerce;
       (4) the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of 
     detection would contribute significantly to the prevention 
     and punishment of such unlawful acts; and
       (5) for the purpose of deterring and detecting such 
     unlawful acts, the Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 
     1 March 1991, requires each contracting State to adopt 
     appropriate measures to ensure that plastic explosives are 
     duly marked and controlled.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fully implement 
     the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the 
     Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.

     SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 841 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(o) `Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives' 
     means the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for 
     the Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.
       ``(p) `Detection agent' means any one of the substances 
     specified in this subsection when introduced into a plastic 
     explosive or formulated in such explosive as a part of the 
     manufacturing process in such a manner as to achieve 
     homogeneous distribution in the finished explosive, 
     including--
       ``(1) Ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), 
     C2H4(NO3)2, molecular weight 152, when 
     the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.2 
     percent by mass;
       ``(2) 2, 3-Dimethyl-2, 3-dinitrobutane (DMNB), 6H 
     12(NO 2)2, molecular weight 176, when the 
     minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.1 
     percent by mass;
       ``(3) Para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT), 
     C7H7NO2, molecular weight 137, when the 
     minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 
     percent by mass;
       ``(4) Ortho-Mononitrotoluene (o-MNT), 
     C7H7NO2, molecular weight 137, when the 
     minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 
     percent by mass; and
       ``(5) any other substance in the concentration specified by 
     the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State 
     and the Secretary of Defense, which
      has been added to the table in Part 2 of the Technical Annex 
     to the Convention on the Marketing of Plastic Explosives.
       ``(q) `Plastic explosive' means an explosive material in 
     flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more 
     high explosives which in their pure form have a vapor 
     pressure less than 10-4 Pa at a temperature of 
     25 deg.C., is formulated with a binder material, and is as a 
     mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature.''.

     SEC. 404. REQUIREMENT OF DETECTION AGENTS FOR PLASTIC 
                   EXPLOSIVES.

       Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding after subsection (k) the following new subsections:
       ``(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture 
     any plastic explosive which does not contain a detection 
     agent.
       ``(m)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or 
     bring into the United States, or export from the United 
     States, any plastic explosive which does not contain a 
     detection agent.
       ``(2) This subsection does not apply to the importation or 
     bringing into the United States, or the exportation from the 
     United States, of any plastic explosive which was imported, 
     brought into, or manufactured in the United States prior to 
     the effective date of the Marketing of Plastic Explosives for 
     Detection Act by or on behalf of any agency of the United 
     States performing military or police functions (including any 
     military reserve component) or by or on behalf of the 
     National Guard of any State, not later than 15 years after 
     the date of entry into force of the Convention on the Marking 
     of Plastic Explosives, with respect to the United States.
       ``(n)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to ship, 
     transport, transfer, receive, or possess any plastic 
     explosive which does not contain a detection agent.
       ``(2) This subsection does not apply to--
       ``(A) the shipment, transportation, transfer, receipt, or 
     possession of any plastic explosive, which was imported, 
     brought into, or manufactured in the United States prior to 
     the effective date of this Act by any person during a period 
     not exceeding three years after the effective date of this 
     Act; or
       ``(B) the shipment, transportation, transfer, receipt, or 
     possession of any plastic explosive, which was imported, 
     brought into, or manufactured in the United States prior to 
     the effective date of this Act by or on behalf of any agency 
     of the United States performing a military or police function 
     (including any military reserve component) or by or on behalf 
     of the National Guard of any State, not later than 15 years 
     after the date of entry into force of the Convention on the 
     Marking of Plastic Explosives, with respect to the United 
     States.
       ``(o) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than an 
     agency of the United States (including any military reserve 
     component) or the National Guard of any State, possessing any 
     plastic explosive on the effective date of this Act, to fail 
     to report to the Secretary within 120 days from the effective 
     date of this Act the quantity of such explosives possessed, 
     the manufacturer or importer, any marks of identification on 
     such explosives, and such other information as the Secretary 
     may by regulations prescribe.''.

     SEC. 405. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.

       Section 844(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Any person who violates subsections (a) through (i) 
     or (l) through (o) of section 842 of this chapter shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
     or both.''.

     SEC. 406. EXCEPTIONS.

       Section 845 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(l), (m), (n), or (o) 
     of section 842 and subsections'' after ``subsections'';
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) ``and which 
     pertains to safety''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) It is an affirmative defense against any proceeding 
     involving sections 842 (l) through (o) if the proponent 
     proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the plastic 
     explosive--
       ``(1) consisted of a small amount of plastic explosive 
     intended for and utilized solely in lawful--
       ``(A) research, development, or testing of new or modified 
     explosive materials;
       ``(B) training in explosives detection or development or 
     testing of explosives detection equipment; or
       ``(C) forensic science purposes; or
       ``(2) was plastic explosive which, within three years after 
     the date of entry into force of the Convention on the Marking 
     of Plastic Explosives, with respect to the United States, 
     will be or is incorporated in a military device within the 
     territory of the United States and remains an integral part 
     of such military device, or is intended to be, or is 
     incorporated in, and remains an integral part of a military 
     device that is intended to become, or has become, the 
     property of any agency of the United States performing 
     military or police functions (including any military reserve 
     component) or the National Guard of any State, wherever such 
     device is located. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `military device' includes, but is not restricted to, shells, 
     bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, rockets, shaped charges, 
     grenades, perforators, and similar devices lawfully 
     manufactured exclusively for military or police purposes.''.

     SEC. 407. INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY.

       Section 846 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting in the last sentence before the 
     ``subsection'' the phrase ``subsection (m) or (n) of section 
     842 or;'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

     ``The Attorney General shall exercise authority over 
     violations of subsections (m) or (n) of section 842 only when 
     they are committed by a member of a terrorist or 
     revolutionary group. In any matter involving a terrorist or 
     revolutionary group or individual, 
     [[Page S2514]] as determined by the Attorney General, the 
     Attorney General shall have primary investigative 
     responsibility and the Secretary shall assist the Attorney 
     General as requested.''.

     SEC. 408. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                       TITLE V--NUCLEAR MATERIALS

     SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROHIBITIONS.

       (a)(1) Findings.--The Congress finds and declares--
       (A) Nuclear materials, including byproduct materials, can 
     be used to create radioactive dispersal devices which are 
     capable of causing serious bodily injury as well as 
     substantial damage to property and the environment;
       (B) The potential use of nuclear materials, including 
     byproduct materials, enhances the threat posed by terrorist 
     activities and thereby has a greater effect on the security 
     interests of the United States;
       (C) Due to the widespread hazards presented by the threat 
     of nuclear contamination, as well as nuclear bombs, the 
     United States has a strong interest in assuring that persons 
     who are engaged in the illegal acquisition and use of nuclear 
     materials, including byproduct materials, are prosecuted for 
     their offenses;
       (D) The threat that nuclear materials will be obtained and 
     used by terrorist and other criminal organizations has 
     increased substantially since the enactment in 1982 of the 
     legislation which implemented the Convention on the Physical 
     Protection of Nuclear Material, codified at 18 U.S.C. 831;
       (E) The successful efforts to obtain agreements from other 
     countries to dismantle nuclear weapons have resulted in 
     increased packaging and transportation of nuclear materials, 
     thereby decreasing the security of such materials by 
     increasing the opportunity for unlawful diversion and theft;
       (F) The illicit trafficking in the relatively more common, 
     commercially available and useable nuclear and byproduct 
     materials poses a potential to cause significant loss of life 
     and/or environmental damage;
       (G) Reported trafficking incidents in the early 1990's 
     suggest that the individuals involved in trafficking these 
     materials from Eurasia and Eastern Europe frequently 
     conducted their black market sales of
      these materials within the Federal Republic of Germany, the 
     Baltic States, and to a lesser extent in the Middle 
     European countries;
       (H) The international community has become increasingly 
     concerned over the illegal possession of nuclear and nuclear 
     byproduct materials;
       (I) The potentially disastrous ramifications of increased 
     access to nuclear and nuclear byproduct materials pose such a 
     significant future threat that the United States must use all 
     lawful methods available to combat the illegal use of such 
     materials;
       (J) The United States has an interest in encouraging United 
     States corporations to do business in the countries which 
     comprised the former Soviet Union, as well as in other 
     developing democracies; protection of such U.S. corporations 
     from threats created by the unlawful use of nuclear materials 
     is important to the success of the effort to encourage such 
     business ventures, and to further the foreign relations and 
     commerce of the United States;
       (K) The nature of nuclear contamination is such that it may 
     affect the health, environment, and property of U.S. 
     nationals even if the acts which constitute the illegal 
     activity occur outside the territory of the United States, 
     and are primarily directed toward non-U.S. nationals; and
       (L) There is presently no federal criminal statute which 
     provides adequate protection to United States interests from 
     non-weapons grade, yet hazardous radioactive material, and 
     from the illegal diversion of nuclear materials which are 
     held for other than peaceful purposes.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Act is to provide federal 
     law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest possible 
     basis allowed under the Constitution of the United States to 
     combat the threat of nuclear contamination and proliferation 
     which may result from illegal possession and use of 
     radioactive materials.
       (b) Expansion of Scope and Jurisdictional Bases.--Section 
     831 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) in subsection (a), striking ``nuclear material'' each 
     time it appears and inserting each time ``nuclear material or 
     nuclear byproduct material'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)(A), inserting ``or the 
     environment'' after ``property'';
       (3) amending subsection (a)(1)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B)(i) circumstances exist which are likely to cause the 
     death of or serious bodily injury to any person or 
     substantial damage to property or the environment; or (ii) 
     such circumstances are represented to the defendant to 
     exist;'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(6), inserting ``or the environment'' 
     after ``property'';
       (5) amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) an offender or a victim is a national of the United 
     States or a United States corporation or other legal 
     entity;'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(3), striking ``at the time of the 
     offense the nuclear material is in use, storage, or 
     transport, for peaceful purposes, and'';
       (7) striking ``or'' at the end of subsection (c)(3);
       (8) in subsection (c)(4), striking ``nuclear material for 
     peaceful purposes'' and inserting ``nuclear material or 
     nuclear byproduct material'';
       (9) striking the period at the end of subsection (c)(4) and 
     inserting ``; or'';
       (10) adding at the end of subsection (c) a new paragraph as 
     follows:
       ``(5) the governmental entity under subsection (a)(5) is 
     the United States or the threat under subsection (a)(6) is 
     directed at the United States.'';
       (11) in subsection (f)(1)(A), striking ``with an isotopic 
     concentration not in excess of 80 percent plutonium 238'';
       (12) inserting at the beginning of subsection (f)(1)(C) 
     ``enriched uranium, defined as'';
       (13) redesignating subsections (f)(2)-(4) as (f)(3)-(5);
       (14) inserting after subsection (f)(1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) the term `nuclear byproduct material' means any 
     material containing any radioactive isotope created through 
     an irradiation process in the operation of a nuclear reactor 
     or accelerator;'';
       (15) striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (f)(4), as 
     redesignated;
       (16) striking the period at the end of subsection (f)(5), 
     as redesignated, and inserting a semicolon; and
       (17) adding at the end of subsection (f) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(6) the term `national of the United States' has the 
     meaning prescribed in section 101(a) (22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
       ``(7) the term `United States corporation or other legal 
     entity' means any corporation or other entity organized under 
     the laws of the United States or any State, district, 
     commonwealth, territory or possession of the United 
     States.''.

    TITLE VI--PROCEDURAL AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 601. CORRECTION TO MATERIAL SUPPORT PROVISION

       Section 120005 of Pub. Law 103-322, September 13, 1994, is 
     amended to read at the time of its enactment on September 13, 
     1994, as follows:
       ``(a) Offense.--Chapter 113A of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding the following new section:
         ``Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists
       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, `material support or 
     resources' means 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, but 
     does not include humanitarian assistance to persons not 
     directly involved in such violations.
       ``(b) Offense.--A person who, 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, in carrying out, a 
     violation of section 32, 37, 351, 844(f) or (i), 1114, 1116, 
     1203, 1361, 1363, 1751, 2280, 2281, 2332, or 2332a of this 
     title or section 46502 of title 49, or in preparation for or 
     carrying out the concealment or an escape from the commission 
     of any such violation, shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.''.

     SEC. 602. EXPANSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION STATUTE.

       Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) in subsection(a), inserting ``threatens,'' before 
     ``attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass 
     destruction'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (3) by adding the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Any national of the United States who outside of the 
     United States uses, or threatens, attempts or conspires to 
     use, a weapons of mass destruction shall be imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be 
     punished by death or imprisonment for any term of years or 
     for life.''.

     SEC. 603. ADDITION OF TERRORIST OFFENSES TO THE RICO STATUTE.

       (a) Section 1961(1)(B) of title 18 of the United States 
     Code is amended by--
       (1) inserting after ``Section'' the following: ``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 '';
       (2) inserting after ``section 224 (relating to sports 
     bribery,'' the following: ``section 351 (relating to 
     Congressional or Cabinet officer assassination),'';
       (3) inserting after ``section 664 (relating to embezzlement 
     from pension and welfare funds),'' the following: ``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),'';
       (4) inserting after ``sections 891-894 relating to 
     extortionate credit transactions),'' the following: ``section 
     956 (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure 
     certain property in a foreign country),'';
       [[Page S2515]] (5) inserting after ``section 1084 (relating 
     to the transmission of gambling information),'' the 
     following: ``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 1203 (relating to hostage taking),'';
       (6) inserting after ``section 1344 (relating to financial 
     institution fraud),'' the following: ``section 1361 (relating 
     to willful injury of government property), section 1363 
     (relating to destruction of property within the special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction),'';
       (7) inserting after ``section 1513 (relating to retaliating 
     against a witness, victim, or an informant),'' the following: 
     ``section 1751 (relating to Presidential assassination),'';
       (8) inserting after ``section 1958 (relating to use of 
     interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-
     for-hire),'' the following: ``section 2280 (relating to 
     violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 (relating 
     to violence against maritime fixed platforms),''; and
       (9) inserting after ``2321 (relating to trafficking in 
     certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts),'' the 
     following: ``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 acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 
     section 2339A (relating to providing material support to 
     terrorists),''.
       (b) Section 1961(1) of title 18 of the United States Code 
     is amended by striking ``or'' before ``(E)'', and inserting 
     at the end thereof the following: ``or (F) section 46502 of 
     title 49, United States Code;''.

     SEC. 604. ADDITION OF TERRORISM OFFENSES TO THE MONEY 
                   LAUNDERING STATUTE.

       (a) Section 1956(c)(7)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``or extortion;'' and inserting 
     ``extortion, murder, or destruction of property by means of 
     explosive or fire;''.
       (b) Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) inserting after ``an offense under'' the following: 
     ``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),'';
       (2) inserting after ``section 215 (relating to commissions 
     or gifts for procuring loans),'' the following: ``section 351 
     (relating to Congressional or Cabinet officer 
     assassination),'';
       (3) inserting after ``section 798 (relating to 
     espionage),'' the following: ``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),'';
       (4) inserting after ``section 875 (relating to interstate 
     communications),'' the following: ``section 956 (relating to 
     conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure certain property 
     in a foreign country),'';
       (5) inserting after ``section 1032 (relating to concealment 
     of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of 
     financial institution),'' the following: ``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),'';
       (6) inserting after ``section 1203 (relating to hostage 
     taking)'' the following: ``, section 1361 (relating to 
     willful injury of government property), section 1363 
     (relating to destruction of property within the special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction),'';
       (7) inserting after ``section 1708 (relating to theft from 
     the mail'' the following: ``), section 1751 (relating to 
     Presidential assassination),'';
       (8) inserting after ``2114 (relating to bank and postal 
     robbery and theft),'' the following: ``section 2280 (relating 
     to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 
     (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms),''; 
     and
       (9) striking ``of this title'' and inserting the following: 
     ``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), 2339A (relating to providing material support to 
     terrorists) of this title, section 46502 of title 49, United 
     States Code,''.

     SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS 
                   IN CERTAIN TERRORISM RELATED OFFENSES.

       (a) Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (n);
       (2) redesignating subparagraph (o) as subparagraph (q); and
       (3) inserting these two new paragraphs after paragraph (n):
       ``(o) any violation of section 956 or section 960 of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to certain actions against 
     foreign nations);
       ``(p) any violation of section 46502 of title 49, United 
     States Code; and''.
       (b) Section 2516(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before ``or section 1992 (relating to 
     wrecking trains)'' the following: ``section 2332 (relating to 
     terrorist acts abroad), section 2332a (relating to weapons of 
     mass destruction, section 2332b (relating to acts of 
     terrorism transcending national boundaries), section 2339A 
     (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 
     section 37 (relating to violence at international 
     airports),''.

     SEC. 606. CLARIFICATION OF MARITIME VIOLENCE JURISDICTION.

       Section 2280(B)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) in clause (ii), striking ``and the activity is not 
     prohibited as a crime by the State in which the activity 
     takes place''; and
       (2) in clause (iii), striking ``the activity takes place on 
     a ship flying the flag of a foreign country or outside of the 
     United States,''.

     SEC. 607. EXPANSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER BOMB 
                   THREATS.

       Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting ``(1)'' before ``Whoever''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof this new paragraph:
       ``(2) Whoever willfully makes any threat, or maliciously 
     conveys false information knowing the same to be false, 
     concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be 
     made to violate subsections (f) or (i) of this section or 
     section 81 of this title shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

     SEC. 608. INCREASED PENALTY FOR EXPLOSIVE CONSPIRACIES.

       Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a 
     person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this 
     chapter shall be subject to the same penalties (other than 
     the penalty of death) as those prescribed for the offense the 
     commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.''.

     SEC. 609. AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE ASSAULTS, MURDERS, AND THREATS 
                   AGAINST FORMER FEDERAL OFFICIALS ON ACCOUNT OF 
                   THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

       Section 115(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or 
     murder, any person who formerly served as a person designed 
     in paragraph (1), or'' after ``assaults, kidnaps, or murders, 
     or attempts to kidnap or murder''.

     SEC. 610. ADDITION OF CONSPIRACY TO TERRORISM OFFENSES

       (a)(1) Section 32(a)(7) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (2) Section 32(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (b) Section 37(a) title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (c)(1) Section 115(a)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code 
     is amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (2) Section 115(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 609, is further amended by inserting ``or 
     conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (3) Section 115(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking both times it appears ``or attempted 
     kidnapping'' and inserting both times, ``attempted kidnapping 
     or conspiracy to kidnap''.
       (4) (A) Section 115(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``or attempted murder'' and inserting, 
     ``attempted murder or conspiracy to murder''.
       (B) Section 115(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     further amended by striking ``and 1113'' and inserting, 
     ``1113 and 1117''.
       (d) Section 175(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting, ``or conspires to do so,'' after ``any 
     organization to do so,''.
       (e) Section 1203(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (f) Section 2280(a)(1)(H) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (g) Section 2281(a)(1)(F) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (h)(1) Section 46502(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting ``or conspires'' after 
     ``attempting''.
       (2) Section 46502(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspiring to commit'' after 
     ``committing''.

                  TITLE VII--ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 701. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that in order to improve the effectiveness 
     and cost efficiency of the Antiterrorism Training Assistance 
     Program, which is administered and coordinated by the 
     Department of State to increase the antiterrorism 
     capabilities of friendly countries, more flexibility is 
     needed in providing trainers and courses overseas and to 
     provide personnel needed to enhance the administration and 
     evaluation of the courses.

     SEC. 702. ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS.

       Section 573 of chapter 8 (relating to antiterrorism 
     assistance), of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2349aa2) is amended by:
       (1) striking ``30 days'' in subsection (d)(1)(A) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``180 days'';
       (2) striking the ``add'' after subsection (d)(1)(B);
       (3) striking subsection (d)(1)(B);
       (4) inserting ``and'' after subsection (d)(1)(A);
       [[Page S2516]] (5) redesignating subsection (d)(1)(C) as 
     subsection (d)(1)(B);
       (6) amending subsection (d)(2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Personnel of the United States Government authorized 
     to advise foreign countries on antiterrorism matters shall 
     carry out their responsibilities within the United States 
     when determined most effective or outside the United States 
     for periods not to exceed 180 consecutive calendar days.''; 
     and
       (7) striking subsection (f).
                                                                    ____

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                               Section 1.

       Section 1 states that the short title for the Act is ``The 
     Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995.''


                               Section 2.

       Section 2 provides a Table of Contents for the Act.


                               Section 3.

       Section 3 sets forth the congressional findings and 
     purposes for the Act.


                              Section 101.

       The purpose of section 101 is to provide a more certain and 
     comprehensive basis for the Federal Government to respond to 
     future acts of international terrorism carried out within the 
     United States. The section creates an overarching statute 
     (proposed 18 U.S.C. 2332b) which would allow the government 
     to incorporate for purposes of a federal prosecution any 
     applicable federal or state criminal statute violated by the 
     terrorist act, so long as the government can establish any 
     one of a variety of jurisdictional bases delineated in 
     proposed subsection 2332b(c).
       Subsection 101(a) creates a new offense, 18 U.S.C. 2332b, 
     entitled ``Acts of Terrorism Transcending National 
     Boundaries.'' This statute is aimed at those terrorist acts 
     that take place within the United States but which are in 
     some fashion or degree instigated, commanded, or facilitated 
     from outside the United States. It does not encompass acts of 
     street crime or domestic terrorism which are in no way 
     connected to overseas sources.
       Subsection 2332b(a) sets forth the particular findings and 
     purposes for the provision.
       Subsection 2332b(b) sets forth the prohibited acts which 
     relate to the killing, kidnapping, maiming, assault causing 
     serious bodily injury, or assault with a dangerous weapon of 
     any individual (U.S. national or alien) within the United 
     States. It also covers destruction or damage to any 
     structure, conveyance of other real or personal property 
     within the United States. These are the types of violent 
     actions that terrorist most often undertake. The provision 
     encompasses any such activity which is in violation of the 
     laws of the United States or any States, provided a federal 
     jurisdictional nexus is present.
       Subsection 2332b(c) sets forth the jurisdictional bases. 
     Except for subsections (c) (6) and (7), these bases are a 
     compilation of jurisdictional elements which are presently 
     utilized in federal statutes and which have been approved by 
     the courts.
       Paragraph (1) covers the situation where the offender 
     travels in commerce. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 1952.
       Paragraph (2) covers the situation where the mails or a 
     facility utilized in any manner in commerce is used to 
     further the commission of the offense or to effectuate an 
     escape therefrom. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 1951.
       Paragraph (3) covers the situation where the results of 
     illegal conduct affect commerce. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 1365(c).
       Paragraph (4) covers the situation where the victim is a 
     federal official. Cf. 18 U.S.C. 115, 1114, 351, 1751. The 
     language includes both civilians and military personnel. 
     Moreover, it also covers any ``agent'' of a federal agency. 
     Cf. 18 U.S.C. 1114 (i.e., assisting agent of customs or 
     internal revenue) and 1121. It covers all ranches of 
     government, including members of the military services, as 
     well as all independent agencies of the United States.
       Paragraph (5) covers property used in commerce (cf. 18 
     U.S.C. 844(i)), owned by the United States (cf. 18 U.S.C. 
     1361), owned by an institution receiving federal financial 
     assistance (cf. 18 U.S.C. 844(f)) or insured by the federal 
     government (cf. 18 U.S.C. 2113).
       Paragraph (6) provides a jurisdictional base which has not 
     been tested. It should, however, fall with the federal 
     government's commerce power. It is included to avoid the 
     construction, given to many federal interstate commerce 
     statutes, that a ``commercial'' aspect is required. Paragraph 
     (6) would cover both business and personal travel.
       Paragraph (7) covers situations where the victim or 
     perpetrator is not a national of the United States. The 
     victimization of an alien in a terrorist attack has the 
     potential of affecting the relations of the United States 
     with the country of criminal jurisdiction on the involvement 
     of an alien as the perpetrator or victim. E.q., see 18 U.S.C. 
     1203 and 1116. In addition, aliens are a special 
     responsibility of the federal government, as it is involved 
     in admitting aliens, establishing the conditions for their 
     presence, adjusting them to resident alien status, deporting 
     aliens for violating the immigration laws, and eventually 
     naturalizing aliens as citizens.
       Paragraphs (8) and (9) cover the territorial seas of the 
     United States and other places within the special maritime 
     and territorial jurisdiction of the United States that are 
     located within the United States (cf. 18 U.S.C. 7).
       Jurisdiction exists over the prohibited activity if at 
     least one of the jurisdictional elements is applicable to one 
     perpetrator. When jurisdiction exists for one perpetrator, it 
     exists over all perpetrators even those who were never within 
     the United States.
       Subsection (d) sets forth stringent penalties. These 
     penalties are mandatorily consecutive to any other term of 
     imprisonment which the defendant might receive. Consecutive 
     sentences for ``identical'' offenses brought in the same 
     prosecution are constitutionally permissible. See Missouri v. 
     Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 (1983). However, there is no 
     statutory mandatory minimum. The court is given the 
     discretion to decide the penalty for this offense under the 
     sentencing guidelines.
       Subsection (e) limits the prosecutorial discretion of the 
     Attorney General. Before an indictment is sought under 
     section 2332b, the Attorney General, or the highest ranking 
     subordinate of the Attorney General with responsibility for 
     criminal prosecutions, must certify that in his or her 
     judgment the violation of section 2332b, or the activity 
     preparatory to its commission, transcended national 
     boundaries. This means that the Attorney General must 
     conclude that some connection exists between the activities 
     and some person or entity outside the United States.
       Moreover, the certification must find that the offense 
     appears to have been intended to coerce, intimidate, or 
     retaliate against a government or civilian population. This 
     is similar to the certification requirement for ``terrorism'' 
     found in 18 U.S.C. 2332(d). The term ``civilian population'' 
     includes any segment thereof and, accordingly, is consistent 
     with the Congressionally intended scope of section 2332(d). 
     The certification requirement ensures that the statute will 
     only be used against terrorists with overseas connections. 
     Section 2332b is not aimed at purely domestic terrorism or 
     against normal street crime as current law, both federal and 
     state, appears to adequately address these areas. The 
     certification of the Attorney General is not an element of 
     the offense and, except for verification that the 
     determination was made by an authorized official, is not 
     subject to judicial review.
       Subsection (f) states that the Attorney General shall 
     investigate this offense and may request assistance from any 
     other federal, state, or local agency including the military 
     services. This latter provision, also found in several other 
     statutes, see e.g., 18 U.S.C. 351(g) and 1751(i), is intended 
     to overcome the restrictions of the posse comitatus statute, 
     18 U.S.C. 1385. It is not intended to give intelligence 
     agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, any 
     mission that is prohibited by their charters.
       Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 0.85(a), the Attorney General 
     automatically delegates investigative responsibility over 
     this offense to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (FBI). Moreover, under 28 C.F.R. 0.85(l) the 
     FBI has been designated as the lead federal law enforcement 
     agency responsible for criminal investigation of terrorism 
     within the United States. While local and state authorities 
     retain their investigative authority under their respective 
     laws, it is expected that in the event of major terrorist 
     crimes such agencies will cooperate, consult, coordinate and 
     work closely with the FBI, as occurred in the investigation 
     of the World Trade Center bombing in New York City.
       Subsection (g) makes express two points which are normally 
     inferred by courts under similar statutes, namely, that no 
     defendant has to have knowledge of any jurisdictional base 
     and that only the elements of the state offense and not any 
     of its provisions pertaining to procedures or evidence are 
     adopted. Federal rules of evidence and procedure control any 
     case brought under section 2332b.
       Subsection (h) makes it clear that there is 
     extraterritorial jurisdiction to reach defendants who were 
     involved in crimes but who never entered the United States.
       Subsection (i) sets forth definitions, many of which 
     specifically incorporate definitions from elsewhere in the 
     federal code, e.g., the definition of ``territorial sea'' in 
     18 U.S.C. 2280(e).
       Subsection 101(b) makes a technical amendment to the 
     chapter analysis for Chapter 113B of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       Subsection 101(c) amends 18 U.S.C. 3286, which was created 
     by section 120001 of Pub. Law 103-322. Section 3286 is 
     designed to extend the period of limitation for a series of 
     enumerated terrorism offenses from five to eight years. The 
     wording of the section, however, gives rise to a potential 
     interpretation that, with respect to violations of the 
     enumerated offenses that are capital crimes, the same eight-
     year period applies rather than the unlimited period that 
     previously applied and continues to apply to capital offenses 
     under 18 U.S.C. 3281. Section 3286's introductory language is 
     as follows:
       ``Notwithstanding section 3282, no person shall be 
     prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense involving a 
     violation of'' the enumerated provisions of law (emphasis 
     supplied).
       It seems clear that Congress did not intend to reduce the 
     limitations period for offenses under the enumerated statutes 
     that are capital due to the killing of one or more victims. 
     Rather, the intent was (as the title of the section 120001 
     provision indicates) to enlarge the applicable limitation 
     period for non-capital violations of the listed offenses. 
     Accordingly, the proposed amendment would insert ``non-
     capital'' after ``any'' in the above-quoted phrase. Notably, 
     the drafters 
     [[Page S2517]] were careful to include the word ``non-
     capital'' when effecting a similar period of limitations 
     extension applicable to arson offenses under 18 U.S.C. 844(i) 
     in section 320917 of the Pub. L. 103-322.
       Subsection 101(c) also corrects certain erroneous statutory 
     references in section 3286 (i.e., changes ``36'' to ``37'', 
     ``2331'' to ``2332'' and ``2339'' to ``2332a''). Finally, the 
     subsection adds to section 3286 the new 18 U.S.C. 2332b.
       Subsection 101(d) amends section 3142(e) of title 18, 
     United States Code, to insure that a defendant arrested for a 
     violation of the new 18 U.S.C. 2332b is presumed to be 
     unreleasable pending trial. The factors, most likely to be 
     present i.e., an alien perpetrator who is likely to flee and 
     who is working on behalf of or in concert with a foreign 
     organization, makes such an individual unsuitable for release 
     pending trial. This presumption, which is subject to 
     rebuttal, will limit the degree of sensitive evidence that 
     the Government must disclose to sustain its burden to deny 
     release.
       Subsection 101(e) amends the ``roving'' provision in the 
     wiretap statute (18 U.S.C. 2518(11)(b)(ii)) so that it can be 
     applied to violations of new 18 U.S.C. 2332b even in the 
     absence of a showing of intent to thwart detection. The 
     development of evidence of such intent could cause a delay 
     which, in the content of a section 2332b violation, could 
     have catastrophic consequences. Further, the secrecy and 
     clandestine movement of terrorists make it extremely 
     difficult to develop advance knowledge of which precise 
     telephones they will use.


                              section 102.

       Section 102 is designed to complement section 101 of this 
     bill concerning terrorist acts within the United States 
     transcending national boundaries. Just as a better basis for 
     addressing crimes carried out within the United States by 
     international terrorists is needed, it also is appropriate 
     that there should be an effective federal basis to reach 
     conspiracies undertaken in part within the United States for 
     the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts in foreign 
     countries.
       Section 102 covers two areas of activity involving 
     international terrorists. The first is conspiracy in the 
     United
      States to murder, kidnap, or maim a person outside of the 
     United States. The second is conspiracy in the United 
     States to destroy certain critical types of property, such 
     as public buildings and conveyances, in foreign countries. 
     The term conveyance would include cars, buses, trucks, 
     airplanes, trains, and vessels.
       Subsection 102(a) amends current 18 U.S.C. 956 in several 
     ways. It creates a new subsection 956(a) which proscribes a 
     conspiracy in the United States to murder, maim, or kidnap a 
     person outside of the United States. The new section fills a 
     void in the law that exists. Currently, subsection 956(a) 
     only prohibits a conspiracy in the United States to commit 
     certain types of property crimes in a foreign country with 
     which the United States is at peace. It does not cover 
     conspiracy to commit crimes against the person.
       Subsection 102(a) thus expands on the current section 956 
     so that new subsection 956(a) covers conspiracy to commit one 
     of the three listed serious crimes against any person in a 
     foreign country or in any place outside of the jurisdiction 
     of the United States, such as on the high seas. This type of 
     offense is committed by terrorists and the new subsection 
     956(a) is intended to ensure that the government is able to 
     punish those persons who use the United States as a base in 
     which to plot such a crime to be carried out outside the 
     jurisdiction of the United States.
       New subsection 956(a) would apply to conspiracies to commit 
     one of the enumerated offenses where at least one of the 
     conspirators is inside the United States. The other member or 
     members of the conspiracy would not have to be in the United 
     States but at least one overt act in furtherance of the 
     conspiracy would have to be committed in the United States. 
     The subsection would apply, for example, to two individuals 
     who consummated an agreement to kill a person in a foreign 
     country where only one of the conspirators was in the United 
     States and the agreement was reached by telephone 
     conversations or letters, provided at least one of the overt 
     acts were undertaken by one co-conspirator while in the 
     United States. In such a case, the agreement would be reached 
     at least in part in the United States. The overt act may be 
     that of only one of the conspirators and need not itself be a 
     crime.
       Subsection 102(a) also re-enacts current section 956(a) of 
     title 18 (dealing with a conspiracy in the United States to 
     destroy property in a foreign country) as subsection 956(b), 
     and expands its coverage to other forms of property. The 
     revision adds the terms ``airport' and ``airfield'' to the 
     list of ``public utilities'' presently set out in section 
     956(a), since they are particularly attractive targets for 
     terrorists. New subsection 956(b) also adds public 
     conveyances (e.g., buses), public structures, and any 
     religious, educational or cultural property to the list of 
     targets. This makes it clear that the statute covers a 
     conspiracy to destroy any conveyance on which people travel 
     and any structure where people assemble, such as a store, 
     factory or office building. It also covers property used for 
     purposes of tourism, education, religion or entertainment. 
     Accordingly, the words ``public utility'' do not limit the 
     statute's application to a conspiracy to destroy only such 
     public utility property as transportation lines or power 
     generating facilities.
       Consequently, as amended, 18 U.S.C 956 reaches those 
     individuals who have conspired within the United States to 
     commit the violent offenses overseas and who solicit money in 
     the United States to facilitate their commission. Moreover, 
     monetary contributors who have knowledge of the conspiracy's 
     purpose are coconspirators subject to prosecution.
       Subsection 102(a) also increases the penalties in current 
     18 U.S.C. 956(a). The new penalties are comparable to those 
     proposed in section 101 of the bill for the new 18 U.S.C. 
     2332b. Finally, subsection 102(a) eliminates the requirement 
     that is currently found in 18 U.S.C. 956(b) of naming in the 
     indictment the ``specific property'' which is being targeted, 
     as this requirement may be difficult to establish in the 
     context of a terrorism conspiracy which does not result in a 
     completed offense. Additionally, even in a completed 
     conspiracy, the parties may, after agreeing that a category 
     of property or person will be targeted, leave the actual 
     selection of the particular target to their conspirators on 
     the ground overseas. Hence, while an indictment must always 
     describe its purposes with specificity, it need not allege 
     all specific facts, especially those that were formulated at 
     a subsequent time or which may not be completely known to 
     some of the participants.
       Section 956 is contained in chapter 45 of title 18, United 
     States Code, relating to interference with the foreign 
     relations of the United States. It is not intended to apply 
     to duly authorized actions undertaken on behalf of the United 
     States Government. Chapter 45 covers those individuals who, 
     without appropriate governmental authorization, engage in 
     prohibited conduct that is harmful to the foreign relations 
     of the United States.


                              section 103

       This section would correct a failure to execute fully our 
     treaty obligations and would, in addition, clarify and expand 
     federal jurisdiction over certain overseas acts of terrorism 
     affecting United States interests.
       Subsection 103(a) would amend 49 U.S.C. 46502(b) (former 
     section 902(n) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 
     amended (49 U.S.C. App. 1472(n)). Section 46502(b) currently 
     covers those aircraft piracies that occur outside the 
     ``special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States,'' as 
     defined in 49 U.S.C. 46501(2). It, therefore, applies to 
     hijackings of foreign civil aircraft which never enter United 
     States airspace. As a State Party to the 1970 Hague 
     Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of 
     Aircraft, the United States has a treaty obligation to 
     prosecute or extradite such offenders when they are found in 
     the United States. This measure is based on the universal 
     jurisdiction theory. See United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 
     1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991). However, the present statute fails to 
     make clear when federal criminal jurisdiction commences with 
     respect to such air piracies, absent the actual presence 
     within the United States of one of the perpetrators.
       Paragraph (a)(1) would establish clear federal criminal 
     jurisdiction over those foreign aircraft hijackings where 
     United States nationals are victims or perpetrators. While 
     the Hague Convention does not mandate that State Parties 
     criminalize those situations involving their nationals as 
     victims or perpetrators, it does allow State Parties to 
     assert extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the 
     passive personality principle. See Paragraph 3 of Article 4. 
     In addition, other recent international conventions dealing 
     with terrorism, such as the United Nations Convention Against 
     the Taking of Hostages and the International Maritime 
     Organization Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts 
     Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, mandate criminal 
     jurisdiction by a State Party when its national is a 
     perpetrator and permit the assertion of jurisdiction when its 
     national is a victim of an offense prohibited by those 
     conventions. Further, experience has shown that it is often 
     the country whose nationals were victims of the hijacking 
     which is willing to commit the necessary resources to locate, 
     prosecute, and incarcerate the perpetrators for a period of 
     time commensurate with their criminal acts. For those foreign 
     civil aircraft hijackings involving no United States 
     nationals as victims or perpetrators, section 46502 would 
     continue to carry out the U.S. obligation under the 
     Convention to prosecute or extradite an alien perpetrator who 
     was subsequently found in the United States.
       Under the clarified statute, subject matter jurisdiction 
     over the offense would vest whenever a United States national 
     was on a hijacked flight or was the perpetrator of the 
     hijacking. Where a United States national is the perpetrator, 
     all perpetrators, including non-U.S. nationals, would be 
     subject to indictment for the offense, since these non-
     national defendants would be either principals or aiders and 
     abettors within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2.
       Paragraph (a)(2) amends 49 U.S.C. 46502(b)(2) to set forth 
     the three different subject matter jurisdictional bases. It 
     has the effect of repealing the current provision which 
     failed to fully execute our treaty obligation. Presently, 
     paragraph 46502(b)(2) reads: ``This subsection applies only 
     if the place of takeoff or landing of the aircraft on which 
     the individual commits the
      offense is located outside the territory of the country of 
     registration of the aircraft.'' Paragraph (b)(2) was 
     intended to reflect paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Hague 
     Convention, which 
     [[Page S2518]] states that the convention normally applies 
     ``only if the place of take-off or the place of actual 
     landing of the aircraft on which the offense is committed is 
     situated outside the territory of the State of registration 
     of that aircraft.'' However, the authors of the original 
     legislation apparently overlooked the obligation imposed by 
     paragraph 5 of Article 3 of the Convention which applies when 
     the alleged aircraft hijacker is found in the territory of a 
     State Party other than the State of registration of the 
     hijacked aircraft. Paragraph 5 states: ``Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article, Article 6, 7, 8 and 10 
     shall apply whatever the place of take-off or the place of 
     actual landing of the aircraft, if the offender or the 
     alleged offender is found in the territory of a State other 
     than the State of registration of that aircraft.''
       For example, under the Hague Convention, the hijacking of 
     an Air India flight that never left India is not initially 
     covered by the Convention. (Article 3, paragraph 3.) However, 
     the subsequent travel of the offender from India to the 
     jurisdiction of another State Party triggers treaty 
     obligations. Paragraph 5 makes the obligation of Article 7, 
     to either prosecute or extradite an alleged offender found in 
     a party's territory, applicable to a hijacker of a purely 
     domestic air flight who flees to another State.
       Paragraph (a)(3) creates a new section 46502(b)(3) which 
     provides a definition of ``national of the United States'' 
     that has been used in other terrorism provisions, see, e.g., 
     18 U.S.C. 2331(2) and 3077(2)(A).
       Subsection 103(b) amends section 32(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code. Presently, section 32(b) carries out the treaty 
     obligation of the United States, as a State Party to the 
     Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts 
     Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, to prosecute or 
     extradite offenders found in the United States who have 
     engaged in certain acts of violence directed against foreign 
     civil aircraft located outside the United States. The 
     proposed amendment would fully retain current jurisdiction 
     and would establish additional jurisdiction where a United 
     States national was the perpetrator or a United States 
     national was on board such aircraft when the offense was 
     committed. Because subsection 32(b)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, covers the placement of destructive devices upon 
     such aircraft and a ``victim'' does not necessarily have to 
     be on board the aircraft at the time of such placement, the 
     phrase ``or would have been on board'' has been used. In such 
     instances, the prosecution would have to establish that a 
     United States national would have been on board a flight that 
     such aircraft would have undertaken if the destructive device 
     had not been placed thereon.
       Subsection 103(b) is drafted in the same manner as 
     paragraph (a)(2), above, so that once subject matter 
     jurisdiction over the offense vests, all the perpetrators of 
     the offense are subject to indictment for the offense.
       Subsections 103(c), (d), (e) and (f) would amend 18 U.S.C. 
     1116 (murder), 112 (assault), 878 (threats), and 1201 
     (kidnapping), respectively. The primary purpose of these 
     proposed amendments is to extend federal jurisdiction to 
     reach United States nationals, or those acting in concert 
     with such a national, who commit one of the specified 
     offenses against an internationally protected person located 
     outside of the United States. The invocation of such 
     jurisdiction under U.S. law is required by the Convention on 
     the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against 
     Internationally Protected Persons, including diplomatic 
     agents. It was apparently omitted as an oversight when the 
     implementing federal legislation was enacted in 1976 (P.L. 
     94-467).
       Additionally, the provisions would also clarify existing 
     jurisdiction. The language used in the first sentence of 
     sections 1116(e), 112(e), 878(d), and 1201(e) is ambiguous as 
     pertains to instances in which the victim is a United States 
     diplomat. The first sentence in each of these provisions now 
     reads: ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is 
     an internationally protected person, the United States may 
     exercise jurisdiction over the offense if the alleged 
     offender is present within the United States, irrespective of 
     the place where the offense was committed or the nationality 
     of the victim or the alleged offender.''
       This sentence could be read to require the presence of the 
     offender in the United States even when the internationally 
     protected person injured overseas was a United States 
     diplomat. This would be anomalous and was likely not 
     intended. Accordingly, subsections (c)-(f) rewrite the first 
     sentence to read as follows:
       ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an 
     internationally protected person outside the United States, 
     the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense 
     if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or 
     agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of 
     the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in 
     the United States.''
       The provision is drafted, in the same manner as the 
     aircraft piracy and aircraft destruction measures, so that 
     once subject matter jurisdiction over the offense is vested, 
     all the perpetrators of the offense would be subject to 
     indictment for the offense.
       Subsections 103(c)-(f) also would incorporate in an 
     appropriate manner the definition of ``national of the United 
     States'' in sections 1116, 112, 878, and 1201 of title 18.
       Subsection 103(g) contains an amendment similar in nature 
     to those in the preceding subsections. It expands federal 
     jurisdiction over extraterritorial offenses involving 
     violence at international airports under 18 U.S.C. 37. That 
     provision, enacted as section 60021 of Public law 103-322, 
     presently reachers such crimes committed outside the United 
     States only when the offender is later found in the United 
     States. There is, however, good reasons to provide for 
     federal jurisdiction over such terrorist crimes when an 
     offender or a victim is a United States national. In such 
     circumstances the interests of the United States are equal 
     to, if not greater than, the circumstance where neither the 
     victim nor the offender is necessarily a United States 
     national but the offender is subsequently found in this 
     country.
       Subsection 103(h) adds the standard definition of the term 
     ``national of the United States'' to 18 U.S.C. 178. This term 
     is used earlier in the chapter (in 18 U.S.C. 175(a), which 
     provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes 
     involving biological weapons ``committed by or against a 
     national of the United States'') but no definition is 
     provided.


                              section 201

       In recent years, the Department of Justice has obtained 
     considerable evidence of involvement in terrorism by aliens 
     in the United States. Both legal aliens, such as lawful 
     permanent residents and aliens here on student visas, and 
     illegal aliens are known to have aided and to have received 
     instructions regarding terrorist acts from various 
     international terrorist groups. While many of these aliens 
     would be subject to deportation proceedings under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), these proceedings 
     present serious difficulties in cases involving classified 
     information. Specifically, these procedures do not prevent 
     disclosure of classified information where such disclosure 
     would pose a risk to national security. Consequently, section 
     201 sets out a new title in the INA devoted exclusively to 
     the removal of aliens involved in terrorist activity where 
     classified information is used to sustain the grounds for 
     deportation.
       The new title would create a special court, patterned after 
     the special court created under the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). When the 
     Department of Justice believes that it has identified an 
     alien in the United States who has engaged in terrorist 
     activity, and that to afford such an alien a deportation 
     hearing would reveal classified national security 
     information, it could seek an ex parte order from the court. 
     The order would authorize a formal hearing, called a special 
     removal hearing, before the same court, at which the 
     Department of Justice would seek to prove by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the alien had in fact engaged in 
     terrorist activity. At the hearing, classified evidence could 
     be presented in camera
      and not revealed to the alien or the public, although its 
     general nature would normally be summarized.
       Enactment of section 201 would provide a valuable new tool 
     with which to combat aliens who use the United States as a 
     base from which to launch or fund terrorist attacks either on 
     U.S. citizens or on persons in other countries. It is a 
     carefully measured response to the menace posed by alien 
     terrorists and fully comports with and exceeds all 
     constitutional requirements applicable to aliens.
       Subsection 201(a) sets out findings that aliens are 
     committing terrorist acts in the United States and against 
     United States citizens and interests and that the existing 
     provisions of the INA providing for the deportation of 
     criminal aliens are inadequate to deal with this threat. 
     These findings are in addition to the general findings 
     contained in section 3 of the bill. The findings explain that 
     these inadequacies arise primarily because the INA, 
     particularly in its requirements pertaining to deportation 
     hearings, may require disclosure of classified information.
       The findings are important in explaining Congressional 
     intent and purpose. As noted above, section 201 creates an 
     entirely new type of hearing to determine whether aliens 
     believed to be terrorists should be removed from the United 
     States. At such a ``special removal hearing,'' the government 
     would be permitted to introduce in camera and ex parte 
     classified evidence that the alien has engaged in terrorist 
     activity. Such hearings would be held before Article III 
     judges. The in camera and ex parte portion of the hearing 
     would relate to classified information which, if provided to 
     the alien or otherwise made public, would pose a risk to 
     national security. Such an extraordinary type of hearing 
     would be invoked only in a very small percentage of 
     deportation cases, and would be applicable only in those 
     cases in which an Article III judge has found probable cause 
     to believe that the aliens in question are involved in 
     terrorist activity. Although the bill provides the alien many 
     rights equal to--and in some respects greater than--those 
     enjoyed by aliens in ordinary deportation proceedings, the 
     rights specified for aliens subject to a special removal 
     hearing are deemed exclusive of any rights otherwise afforded 
     under the INA.
       It is within the power of Congress to provide for a special 
     adjudicatory proceeding and to specify the procedural rights 
     of aliens involved in terrorist acts. The Supreme Court has 
     noted that ``control over matters of immigration is a 
     sovereign prerogative, largely within the control of the 
     Executive and the Legislature. . . . The role of the 
     judiciary is limited to determining whether the procedures 
     meet the essential standard 
     [[Page S2519]] of fairness under the Due Process Clause and 
     does not extend to imposing procedures that merely displace 
     congressional choices of policy.'' Landon v. Plasencia, 459 
     U.S. 21, 34-35 (1982). Moreover, Congress can specify what 
     type of process is due different classes of aliens. ``(A) 
     host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the 
     premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and 
     aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not 
     accorded to the other; and the class of aliens itself is a 
     heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging 
     variety of ties to this country.'' Matthews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 
     67, 78-79 (1976). Because the Due Process Clause does not 
     require ``that all aliens must be placed in a single 
     homogeneous legal classification,'' id., Congress can provide 
     separate processes and procedures for determining whether to 
     remove resident and non-nonresident alien terrorists.
       Subsection 201(b) adds a new title V to the INA to provide 
     a special process for removing alien terrorists when 
     compliance with normal deportation procedures might adversely 
     affect national security interests of the United States. 
     However, the new title V is not the only way of expelling 
     alien terrorists from the United States. In addition to 
     proceedings under the new special removal provisions, aliens 
     falling within 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)(B) alternatively could be 
     deported following a regular deportation hearing. Moreover, 
     like all other aliens, alien terrorists remain subject to 
     possible expulsion for any of the remaining deportation 
     grounds specified in section 241 of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1251). 
     For example, alien terrorists who violate the criminal laws 
     of the United States remain subject to ``ordinary'' 
     deportation proceedings on charges under INA section 
     241(a)(2). The special removal provisions augment, without in 
     any narrowing, the prosecutorial options in cases of alien 
     terrorists.
       The new title V consists of four new sections of the INA, 
     sections 501-504 (8 U.S.C. 1601-1604). Briefly, the title 
     provides for creation of a special court comprised of Article 
     III judges, patterned after the special court created under 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.). When the Department of Justice believes it has 
     identified an alien terrorist, that is, an alien who falls 
     within 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)(B), and determines that to 
     disclose the evidence of that fact to the alien or the public 
     would compromise national security, the Department may seek 
     an order from the special court. The order would authorize 
     the Department to present the classified portion of its 
     evidence that the alien is a terrorist in camera and ex parte 
     at a special removal hearing. The classified portion of the 
     evidence would be received in chambers with only the court 
     reporter, the counsel for the government, and the witness or 
     document present. The general nature of such evidence, 
     without identifying classified or sensitive particulars, 
     would than normally be revealed to the alien, his counsel, 
     and the public in summarized form. The summary would have to 
     be found by the court to be sufficient to permit the alien to 
     prepare a defense.
       Where an adequate summary, as determined by the court, 
     would pose a risk to national security, and, hence, 
     unavailable to the alien, the special hearing would be 
     terminated unless the court found that (1) the continued 
     presence of the alien in the United States or (2) the 
     preparation of the adequate summary would likely cause 
     serious and irreparable harm to the national security or 
     death or serious bodily injury to any person. If such a 
     situation exits, the special removal hearing would continue, 
     the alien would not receive a summary, and the relevant 
     classified information could be introduced against the alien 
     pursuant to subsection (j).
       If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge finds that 
     the government has established by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the alien has engaged in terrorist activity, 
     the judge would order the alien removed from the United 
     States. The alien could appeal the decision to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
     and ultimately could petition for a writ of certiorari to the 
     Supreme Court.
       Use of information that is not made available to the alien 
     for reasons of national security is a well-established 
     concept in the existing provisions of the INA and immigration 
     regulations. For example, section 235(c) provides for an 
     expedited exclusion process for aliens excludable under 8 
     U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) (providing for the exclusion, inter alia, 
     of alien spies, saboteurs, and terrorists), and states in 
     relevant part:
       ``If the Attorney General is satisfied that the alien is 
     excludable under [paragraph 212(a)(3)] on the basis of 
     information of a confidential nature, the disclosure of which 
     the Attorney General, in his discretion, and after 
     consultation with the appropriate security agencies of the 
     Government, concludes would be prejudicial to the public 
     interest, safety, or security, he may in his discretion order 
     such alien to be excluded and deported without any inquiry or 
     further inquiry by [an immigration judge].''
       Thus, where it is necessary to protect sensitive 
     information, existing law authorizes the Attorney General to 
     conduct exclusion proceedings outside the ordinary 
     immigration court procedures and to rely on classified 
     information in ordering the exclusion of alien terrorists.
       In the deportation context, 8 C.F.R. 242.17 (1990) provides 
     that in determining whether to grant discretionary relief to 
     an otherwise deportable alien, the immigration judge--
       ``May consider and base his decision on information not 
     contained in the record and not made available for inspection 
     by the [alien], provided the Commissioner has determined that 
     such information is relevant and
      is classified under Executive Order No. 12356 (47 FR 14874, 
     April 6, 1982) as requiring protection from unauthorized 
     disclosure in the interest of national security.''
       The constitutionality of this provision has been upheld. 
     Suciu v. INS, 755 F.2d 127 (8th Cir. 1985). The alien in that 
     case had been in the United States for 16 years and had 
     become deportable for overstaying his student visa, a 
     deportation ground ordinarily susceptible to discretionary 
     relief. Nevertheless, the court held that it was proper to 
     deny the alien discretionary relief without disclosing to him 
     the reasons for the denial. Sucia followed the Supreme 
     Court's holding sustaining the constitutionality of a similar 
     predecessor regulation in Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956).

                      Section 501 (Applicability)

       Section 501 sets forth the applicability of the new title. 
     Section 501(a) states that the title may, but need not, be 
     employed by the Department of Justice whenever it has 
     information that an alien is subject to deportation because 
     he is an alien described in 8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (4)(B), that is, 
     because he has engaged in terrorist activity.
       Section 501(b) provides that whenever an official of the 
     Department of Justice determines to seek the expulsion of an 
     alien terrorist under the special removal provisions, only 
     the provisions of the new title need be followed. This 
     ensures that such an alien will not be deemed to have any 
     additional rights under the other provisions of the INA. 
     Except when specifically referenced in the special removal 
     provisions, the remainder of the INA would be inapplicable. 
     For example, under the special removal provisions an alien 
     who has entered the United States (and thus is not 
     susceptible to exclusion proceedings) need not be given a 
     deportation hearing under section 242 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
     1252, and will not have available the rights generally 
     afforded aliens in deportation proceedings (e.g., the 
     opportunity for an alien out of status to correct his 
     status).
       Section 501(c) states that Congress has enacted the title 
     upon finding that alien terrorists represent a unique threat 
     to the security interests of the United States. Consequently, 
     the subsection states Congress' specific intent that the 
     Attorney General be authorized to remove such aliens without 
     resort to a traditional deportation hearing, following an ex 
     parte judicial determination of probable cause to believe 
     they have engaged in terrorist activity and a further 
     judicial determination, following a modified adversarial 
     hearing, that the Department of Justice has established by 
     clear and convincing evidence that the aliens in fact have 
     engaged in terrorist activity.
       Section 501(c) is designed to make clear that singling out 
     alien terrorists for a special type of hearing rather than 
     according them ordinary deportation hearings is a careful and 
     deliberate policy choice by a political branch of government. 
     This policy choice is grounded upon the legislative 
     determination that alien terrorists seriously threaten the 
     security interests of the United States and that the existing 
     process for adjudicating and effecting alien removal is 
     inadequate to meet this threat. In accordance with settled 
     Supreme Court precedent, such a choice is well within the 
     authority of the political branches of government to control 
     our relationship with and response to aliens.
       For example, in Mathews v. Diaz, supra, the Court held that 
     Congress could constitutionally provide that only some aliens 
     were entitled to Medicare benefits. The Court held that it 
     was ``unquestionably reasonable for Congress to make an 
     alien's eligibility depend on both the character and duration 
     of his residence,'' and noted that the Court was ``especially 
     reluctant to question the exercise of congressional 
     judgment'' in matters of alien regulation. 426 U.S. at 83, 
     84; see Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977) (describing 
     the regulation of aliens as a political matter ``largely 
     immune from judicial control''). The specific findings and 
     reference to the intent in adopting the new provisions of 
     title V make clear the policy judgment that alien terrorists 
     should be treated as a separate class of aliens and that this 
     choice should not be disturbed by the courts.

                 Section 502 (Special Removal Hearing)

       Section 502 sets out the procedure for the special removal 
     hearing. Section 502(a) provides that whenever the Department 
     of Justice determines to use the special removal process it 
     must submit a written application to the special court 
     (established pursuant to section 503) for an order 
     authorizing such procedure. Each application must indicate 
     that the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General has 
     approved its submission and must include the identity of the 
     Department attorney making the application, the identity of 
     the alien against whom removal proceedings are sought, and a 
     statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the 
     Department of Justice as justifying the belief that the 
     subject is an alien terrorist and that following normal 
     deportation procedures would pose a risk to the national 
     security of the United States.
       Section 502(b) provides that applications for special 
     removal proceedings shall be filed under seal with the 
     special court established pursuant to section 503. At or 
     after the time the application is filed, the Attorney General 
     may take the subject alien into custody. The 
     [[Page S2520]] Attorney General's authority to retain the 
     alien in custody is governed by the provisions of new title V 
     which, as explained below, provide in certain circumstances 
     for the release of the alien.
       Although title V does not require the Attorney General to 
     take the alien subject to special removal applications into 
     custody, it is expected that most such aliens will be 
     apprehended and confined. The Attorney General's decision 
     whether to take a non-resident alien into custody will not be 
     subject to judicial review. However, a resident alien is 
     entitled to a release hearing before the judge assigned by 
     the special court. The resident alien may be released upon 
     such terms and conditions prescribed by the court (including 
     the posting of any monetary amount), if the alien 
     demonstrates to the court that the alien, if released, is not 
     likely to flee and that the alien's release will not endanger 
     national security or the safety of any person or the 
     community. Subsequent provisions (section 504(a)) authorize 
     the Attorney General to retain custody of alien terrorists 
     who have been ordered removed until such aliens can be 
     physically delivered outside our borders.
       Section 502(c) provides that special removal applications 
     shall be considered by a single Article III judge in 
     accordance with section 503. In each case, the judge shall 
     hold an ex parte hearing to receive and consider the written 
     information provided with the application and such other 
     evidence, whether documentary or testimonial in form, as the 
     Department of Justice may proffer. The judge shall grant an 
     ex parte order authorizing the special removal hearing as 
     provided under title V if the judge finds that, on the basis 
     of the information and evidence presented, there is probable 
     cause to believe that the subject of the application is an 
     alien who falls within the definition of alien terrorist and 
     that adherence to the ordinary deportation procedures would 
     pose a risk to national security.
       Section 502(d)(1) provides that in any case in which a 
     special removal application is denied, the Department of 
     Justice within 20 days may appeal the denial to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
     In the event of a timely appeal, a confined alien may be 
     retained in custody. When the Department of Justice appeals 
     from the denial of a special removal application, the record 
     of proceedings will be transmitted to the Court of Appeals 
     under seal and the court will hear the appeal ex parte. 
     Subsequent provisions (section 502(p)) authorize the 
     Department of Justice to petition the Supreme Court for a 
     writ of certiorari from an adverse appellate judgment.
       Section 502(d)(2) provides that if the Department of 
     Justice does not seek appellate review of the denial of a 
     special removal application, the subject alien must be 
     released from custody unless, as a deportable alien, the 
     alien may be arrested and taken into custody pursuant to 
     title II of the INA. Thus, for example, when the judge finds 
     that the special procedures of title V are unwarranted but 
     the alien is subject to deportation as an overstay or for 
     violation of status, the alien might be retained in custody
      but such detention would be pursuant to and governed by the 
     provisions of title II.
       Subsection 502(d)(3) provides that if a special removal 
     application is denied because the judge finds no probable 
     cause that the alien has engaged in terrorist activities, the 
     alien must be released from custody during the pendency of an 
     appeal by the government. However, section 502(d)(3) is 
     similar to section 502(d)(2) in that it provides for the 
     possibility of continued detention in the case of aliens who 
     otherwise are subject to deportation under title II of the 
     Act.
       Section 502(d)(4) applies to cases in which the judge finds 
     probable cause that the subject of a special removal 
     application has been correctly identified as an alien 
     terrorist, but fails to find probable cause that use of the 
     special procedures are necessary for reasons of national 
     security, and the Department of Justice determines to appeal. 
     A finding that the alien has engaged in terrorist activity--a 
     ground for deportation that would support confinement under 
     title II of the Act--justifies retaining the alien in 
     custody. Nevertheless, section 502(d)(4) provides that the 
     judge must determine the question of custody based upon an 
     assessment of the risk of flight and the danger to the 
     community or individuals should the alien be released. The 
     judge shall release the alien subject to the least 
     restrictive condition(s) that will reasonably assure the 
     alien's appearance at future proceedings, should the 
     government prevail on its appeal, and will not endanger the 
     community or individual members thereof. The possible release 
     conditions are those authorized under the Bail Reform Act of 
     1984, 18 U.S.C. 3142(b) and (c), and range from release on 
     personal recognizance to release on execution of a bail bond 
     or release limited to certain places or periods of time. As 
     with the referenced provsions of the Bail Reform Act, the 
     judge may deny release altogether upon determining that no 
     condition(s) of release would assure the alien's future 
     appearance and community safety.
       Section 502(e)(1) provides that in cases in which the 
     special removal application is approved, the judge must then 
     consider each piece of classified evidence that the 
     Department of Justice proposes to introduce in camera and ex 
     parte at the special removal hearing. The judge shall 
     authorize the in camera and ex parte introduction of any item 
     of classified evidence if such evidence is relevant to the 
     deportation charge.
       Section 502(e)(1) also provides that with respect to any 
     evidence authorized to be introduced in camera and ex parte, 
     the judge must consider how the alien subject to the 
     proceedings is to be advised regarding such evidence. The 
     Department of Justice must prepare a summary of the 
     classified informaiton. The court must find the summary to be 
     sufficient to inform the alien of the general nature of the 
     evidence that he has engaged in terrorist activity, and to 
     permit the alien to prepare a defense. A summary, however, 
     ``shall not pose a risk to the national security.'' In 
     considering the summary to be provided to the alien of the 
     government's proffered evidence, it is intended that the 
     judge balance the alien's interest in having an opportunity 
     to hear and respond to the case against him against the 
     government's extraordinarily strong interest in protecting 
     the national security. The Department of Justice shall 
     provide the alien a copy of the court approved summary.
       In situations where the court does not approve the proposed 
     summary, the Department of Justice can amend the summary to 
     meet specific concerns raised by the court. Subsection (e)(2) 
     provides that if such submission is still found unacceptable, 
     the special removal proceeding is to be terminated unless the 
     court finds that the continued presence of the alien in the 
     United States or the preparation of an adequate summary would 
     likely cause serious and irreparable harm to the national 
     security or death or serious bodily injury to any person. If 
     such a situation exists, the special removal hearing would 
     continue, the alien would be notified that no summary is 
     possible, and relevant classified information could be 
     introduced against the alien pursuant to subsection (j).
       Section 502(e)(3) provides that, in certain situations, the 
     Department of Justice may take an interlocutory appeal to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit from the judge's rulings regarding the in camera and 
     ex parte admission and summarization of particular items of 
     evidence. Interlocutory appeal is authorized if the judge 
     rules that a piece of classified information may not be 
     introduced in camera and ex parte because it is not relevant; 
     or if the Department disagrees with the judge regarding the 
     wording of a summary (that is, if the Department believes 
     that the scope of summary required by the court will 
     compromise national security). Interlocutory appeal is also 
     authorized when the court refuses to make the finding 
     permitted by subsection (e)(2). Because the alien is to 
     remain in custody during such an appeal, the Court of Appeals 
     must hear the matter as expeditiously as possible. When the 
     Department appeals, the entire record must be transmitted to 
     the Court of Appeals under seal and the court shall hear the 
     matter ex parte.
       Section 502(f) provides that in any case in which the 
     Department's application is approved, the court shall order a 
     special removal hearing for the purpose of determining 
     whether the alien in question has engaged in terrorist 
     activity. Subsection (f) provides that ``[i]n accordance with 
     subsection (e), the alien shall be given reasonable notice of 
     the nature of the charges against him and a general account 
     of the basis for the charges.'' This cross-reference is 
     intended to make clear that subsection (f) is not to be 
     construed as requiring that information be given to the alien 
     about the nature of the charges if such information would 
     reveal the matters that are to be introduced in camera. The 
     special removal hearing must be held as expeditiously as 
     possible.
       Section 502(g) provides that the special removal hearing 
     shall be held before the same judge who approved the 
     Department of Justice's application unless the judge becomes 
     unavailable due to illness or disability.
       Section 502(h) sets out the rights to be afforded to the 
     alien at the special removal hearing. The hearing shall be 
     open to the public, the alien shall have the right to be 
     represented by counsel (at government expense if he cannot 
     afford representation), and to introduce evidence in his own 
     behalf. Except as provided in section 502(j) regarding 
     presentation of evidence in camera and ex parte, the alien 
     also shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the 
     evidence against him and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. 
     As in the case of administrative proceedings under the INA 
     and civil proceedings generally, the alien may be called as a 
     witness by the Department of Justice. A verbatim record of 
     the proceedings and of all evidence and testimony shall be 
     kept.
       Section 502(i) provides that either the alien or the 
     government may request the issuance of a subpoena for 
     witnesses and documents. A subpoena request may be made ex 
     parte, except that the judge must inform the Department of 
     Justice where the subpoena sought by the alien threatens 
     disclosure of evidence of the source or evidence which the 
     Department of Justice has introduced or proffered for 
     introduction in camera and ex parte. In such cases, the 
     Department of Justice shall be given a reasonable opportunity 
     to oppose the issuance of a subpoena and, if necessary to 
     protect the confidentiality of the evidence or its source, 
     the judge may, in his discretion, hear such opposition in 
     camera. A subpoena under section 502(i) may be served 
     anywhere in the United States. Where the alien shows an 
     inability to pay for the appearance of a necessary witness, 
     the court may order the costs of the subpoena and witness fee 
     to be paid by the government from funds appropriated for the 
     enforcement of 
     [[Page S2521]] title II of the INA. Section 502(i) states 
     that it is not intended to allow the alien access to 
     classified information.
       Section 502(j) provides that any evidence which has been 
     summarized pursuant to section 502(e)(1) may be introduced 
     into the record, in documentary or testimonial form, in 
     camera and ex parte. The section also permits the 
     introduction of relevant classified information if the court 
     has made the finding permitted by subsection (e)(2). While 
     the alien and members of the public would be aware that 
     evidence was being submitted in camera and ex parte, neither 
     the alien nor the public would be informed of the nature of 
     the evidence except as set out in section 502(e)(1). For 
     example, if the Department of Justice sought to present in 
     camera and ex parte evidence through live testimony, the 
     courtroom could be cleared of the alien, his counsel, and the 
     public while the
      testimony is presented. Alternatively, the court might hear 
     the testimony in chambers attended by only the reporter, 
     the government's counsel, and the witness. In the case of 
     documentary evidence, sealed documents could be presented 
     to the court without examination by the alien or his 
     counsel (or access by the public).
       While the Department of Justice does not have to present 
     evidence in camera and ex parte, even if it previously has 
     received authorization to do so, it is contemplated that 
     ordinarily much of the government's evidence (or at least the 
     crucial portions thereof) will be presented in this fashion 
     rather than in open court. The right to present evidence in 
     camera and ex parte will have been determined in the ex parte 
     proceedings before the court pursuant to subsections (a) 
     through (c) of section 502.
       Section 502(k) provides that evidence introduced in open 
     session or in camera and ex parte may include all or part of 
     the information that was presented at the earlier ex parte 
     proceedings. If the evidence is to be introduced in camera 
     and ex parte, the attorney for the Department of Justice 
     could refer the judge to such evidence in the transcript of 
     the ex parte hearing and ask that it be considered as 
     evidence at the removal hearing itself. The Department might 
     present evidence in open court rather than in camera and ex 
     parte as a result of changed circumstances, for example, 
     where the source whose life was at risk had died before the 
     hearing or if the Department believes that a public 
     presentation of the evidence might have a deterrent effect on 
     other terrorists. In any event, once the Department of 
     Justice has received authorization to present evidence in 
     camera and ex parte, its decision whether to do so is purely 
     discretionary and is not subject to review at the time of the 
     special removal hearing. Of course, the disclosure of any 
     classified information requires appropriate consultation with 
     the originating agency.
       Section 502(l) provides that following the introduction of 
     evidence, the attorney for the Department of Justice and the 
     attorney for the alien shall be given fair opportunity to 
     present argument as to whether the evidence is sufficient to 
     justify the alien's removal. At the judge's discretion, in 
     camera and ex parte argument by the Department of Justice 
     attorney may be heard regarding evidence received in camera 
     and ex parte.
       Section 502(m) provides that the Department of Justice has 
     the burden of showing that the evidence is sufficient. This 
     burden is not satisfied unless the Department establishes by 
     clear and convincing evidence--the standard of proof 
     applicable in a deportation hearing--that the alien has 
     engaged in terrorist activity. If the judge finds that the 
     Department has met that burden, the judge must order the 
     alien removed. In cases in which the alien has been shown to 
     have engaged in terrorist activity, the judge has no 
     authority to decide that removal would be unwarranted. If the 
     alien was a resident alien granted release, the court is to 
     order the Attorney General to take the alien into custody.
       Section 502(n)(1) provides that the judge must render his 
     decision as to the alien's removal in the form of a written 
     order. The order must state the facts found and the 
     conclusions of law reached, but shall not reveal the 
     substance of any evidence received in camera or ex parte.
       Section 502(n)(2) provides that either the alien or the 
     Department of Justice may appeal the judge's decision to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit. Any such appeal must be filed within 20 days, and 
     during this period the order shall not be executed. 
     Information received in camera and ex parte at the special 
     removal hearing shall be transmitted to the Court of Appeals 
     under seal. The Court of Appeals must hear the appeal as 
     expeditiously as possible.
       Section 502(n)(3) sets out the standard of review for 
     proceedings in the Court of Appeals. Questions of law are to 
     be reviewed de novo, but findings of fact may not be 
     overturned unless clearly erroneous. This is the usual 
     standard in civil cases.
       Section 502(o) provides that in cases in which the judge 
     decides that the alien should not be removed, the alien must 
     be released from custody. There is an exception for aliens 
     who may be arrested and taken into custody pursuant to title 
     II of the INA as aliens subject to deportation. For such 
     aliens, the issues of release and/or circumstances of 
     continued detention would be governed by the pertinent 
     provisions of the INA.
       Section 502(p) provides that following a decision by the 
     Court of Appeals, either the alien or the government may seek 
     a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. In such cases, 
     information submitted to the Court of Appeals under seal 
     shall, if transmitted to the Supreme Court, remain under 
     seal.
       Section 502(q) sets forth the normal right the Government 
     has to dismiss a removal action at any stage of the 
     proceeding.
       Section 502(r) acknowledges that the United States retains 
     it common law privileges.

                  Section 503 (Designation of Judges)

       Section 503 establishes the special court to consider 
     terrorist removal cases under section 502, patterned on the 
     special court created under the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Section 503(a) 
     provides that the court will consist of five federal district 
     court judges chosen by the Chief Justice of the United States 
     from five different judicial circuits. One of these judges 
     shall be designated as the chief or presiding judge. Should 
     the Chief Justice determine it appropriate, he could 
     designate as judges under this section some of those that he 
     has designated pursuant to section 1803(a) of title 50, 
     United States Code for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Court. The presiding judge shall promulgate rules for the 
     functioning of the special court. The presiding judge also 
     shall be responsible for assigning cases to the various 
     judges. Section 503(c) provides that judges shall be 
     appointed to the special court for terms of five years, 
     except for the initial appointments the terms of which shall 
     vary from one to five years so that one new judge will be 
     appointed each year. Judges may be reappointed to the special 
     court.
       Section 503(b) provides that all proceedings under section 
     502 are to be held as expeditiously as possible. Section 
     503(b) also provides that the Chief Justice, in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, the Director of Central 
     Intelligence and other appropriate officials, shall provide 
     for the maintenance of appropriate security measures to 
     protect the ex parte special removal applications, the orders 
     entered in response to such applications, and the evidence 
     received in camera and ex parte sufficient to prevent 
     disclosures which could compromise national security.

                 Section 504 (Miscellaneous Provisions)

       Section 504 contains the title's miscellaneous provisions. 
     Section 504(a) provides that following a final determination 
     that the alien terrorist should be removed (that is, after 
     the special removal hearing and completion of any appellate 
     review), the Attorney General may retain the alien in custody 
     (or if the alien was released, apprehend and place the alien 
     in custody) until he can be removed from the United States. 
     The alien is provided the right to choose the country to 
     which he will be removed, subject to the Attorney General's 
     authority, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to 
     designate another country if the alien's choice would impair 
     a United States treaty obligation (such as an obligation 
     under an extradition treaty) or would adversely affect the 
     foreign policy of the United States. If the alien does not 
     choose a country or if he chooses a country deemed 
     unacceptable, the Attorney General, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of State, must make efforts to find a country that 
     will take the alien. The alien may, at the attorney General's 
     discretion, be kept in custody until an appropriate country 
     can be found, and the Attorney General shall provide the 
     alien with a written report regarding such efforts at least 
     once every six months. The Attorney General's determinations 
     and actions regarding execution of the removal order are not 
     subject to direct or collateral judicial review, except for a 
     claim that continued detention violates the alien's 
     constitutional rights. The alien terrorist shall be 
     photographed
      and fingerprinted and advised of the special penalty 
     provisions for unlawful return before he is removed from 
     the United States.
       Section 504(b) provides that, notwithstanding section 
     504(a), the Attorney General may defer the actual removal of 
     the alien terrorist to allow the alien to face trial on any 
     State or federal criminal charge (whether or not related to 
     his terrorist activity) and, if convicted, to serve a 
     sentence of confinement. Section 504(b)(2) provides that 
     pending the service of a State or federal sentence of 
     confinement, the alien terrorist is to remain in the Attorney 
     General's custody unless the Attorney General determines that 
     the alien can be released to the custody of State authorities 
     for pretrial confinement in a State facility without 
     endangering national security or public safety. It is 
     intended that where the alien terrorist could possibly secure 
     pretrial release, the Attorney General shall not release the 
     alien to a State for pretrial confinement. Section 503(b)(3) 
     provides that if an alien terrorist released to State 
     authorities is subsequently to be released from state custody 
     because of an acquittal in the collateral trial, completion 
     of the alien's sentence of confinement, or otherwise, the 
     alien shall immediately be returned to the custody of the 
     Attorney General who shall then proceed to effect the alien's 
     removal from the United States.
       Section 504(c) provides that for purposes of sections 751 
     and 752 of title 18 (punishing escape from confinement and 
     aiding such an escape), an alien in the Attorney General's 
     custody pursuant to this new title--whether awaiting or after 
     completion of a special removal hearing--shall be treated as 
     if in custody by virtue of a felony arrest. Accordingly, 
     escape by or aiding the escape of an 
     [[Page S2522]] alien terrorist will be punishable by 
     imprisonment for up to five years.
       Section 504(d) provides that an alien in the Attorney 
     General's custody pursuant to this new title--whether 
     awaiting or after completion of a special removal hearing--
     shall be given reasonable opportunity to receive visits from 
     relatives and friends and to consult with his attorney. 
     Determination of what is ``reasonable'' usually will follow 
     the ordinary rules of the facility in which the alien is 
     confined.
       Section 504(d) also provides that when an alien is confined 
     pursuant to this new title, he shall have the right to 
     contact appropriate diplomatic or consular officers of his 
     country of citizenship or nationality. Moreover, even if the 
     alien makes no such request, subsection (d) directs the 
     Attorney General to notify the appropriate embassy of the 
     alien's detention.
       Subsection 201(c) sets out three conforming amendments to 
     the INA. First, section 106 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a, 
     is amended to provide that appeals from orders entered 
     pursuant to section 235(c) of the Act (pertaining to summary 
     exclusion proceedings for alien spies, saboteurs, and 
     terrorists) shall be to the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thus, in cases 
     involving alien terrorists, the same court of appeals shall 
     hear both exclusion and deportation appeals and will develop 
     unique expertise concerning such cases.
       Second, section 276 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326, is 
     amended to add increased penalties for an alien entering or 
     attempting to enter the United States without permission 
     after removal under the new title or exclusion under section 
     235(c) for terrorist activity. For aliens unlawfully 
     reentering or attempting to reenter the United States, the 
     section presently provides for a fine pursuant to title 18 
     and/or imprisonment for up to two years (five years when the 
     alien has been convicted of a felony in the United States, or 
     15 years when convicted of an ``aggravated felony''); the 
     bill increases to a mandatory ten years the term of 
     imprisonment for reentering alien terrorists.
       Finally, section 106 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1105a, is 
     amended to strike subsection (a)(10) regarding habeas corpus 
     review of deportation orders. Originally enacted in 1961 to 
     make clear that the exclusive provision for review of final 
     deportation orders through petition to the courts of appeals 
     was not intended to extinguish traditional writs of habeas 
     corpus in cases of wrongful detention, the subsection has 
     been the source of confusion and duplicative litigation in 
     the courts. Congress never intended that habeas corpus 
     proceedings be an alternative to the process of petitioning 
     the courts of appeals for review of deportation orders. 
     Elimination of subsection (a)(10) will make clear that any 
     review of the merits of a deportation order or the denial of 
     relief from deportation is available only through petition 
     for review in the courts of appeals, while leaving unchanged 
     the traditional writ of habeas corpus to examine challenges 
     to detention arising from asserted errors of constitutional 
     proportions.
       Subsection 201(d) provides that the new provisions are 
     effective upon enactment and ``apply to all aliens without 
     regard to the date of entry or attempted entry into the 
     United States.'' Aliens may not avoid the special removal 
     process on the grounds that either their involvement in 
     terrorist activity or their entry into the United States 
     occurred before enactment of the new title. Upon enactment, 
     the new title will be available to the Attorney General for 
     removal of any and all alien terrorists when classified 
     information is involved.


                              Section 202

       This section makes additional changes to the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Act (INA) besides those contained in 
     section 201. It improves the government's ability to deny 
     visas to alien terrorist leaders and to deport non-resident 
     alien terrorists under the INA.
       Subsection 202(a) amends the excludability provisions of 
     the INA relating to terrorism activities (section 
     212(a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)). Most of the 
     changes are clarifying in nature, but a few are substantive. 
     The changes are:
       (1) ``Terrorist'' is changed to ``terrorism'' in most 
     instances in order to direct focus on the nature of the 
     activity itself and not the character of the particular 
     individual perpetrator.
       (2) Definitions of ``terrorist organization'' and 
     ``terrorism'' are added. The definition of ``terrorist 
     organization'' includes subgroups. Although a terrorist 
     organization may perform certain charitable activities, e.g., 
     run a hospital, this does not remove its characterization of 
     being a terrorist organization if it, or any of its 
     subgroups, engages in terrorism activity. The definition of 
     ``terrorism'' describes terrorism as the ``premeditated 
     politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombat 
     targets.'' This is consistent with existing law found 
     elsewhere in the federal code. See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. 2656f(d).
       (3) In order to make ``representatives'' of certain 
     specified terrorist organizations excludable, the term has 
     been expanded to cover any person who directs, counsels, 
     commands or induces the organization or its members to engage 
     in terrorism activity. The terms ``counsels, commands, or 
     induces'' are used in 18 U.S.C. 2. Presently, only the 
     officers, officials, representatives and spokesman are deemed 
     to be excludable. This change expands coverage to encompass 
     those leaders of the group who may not hold formal titles and 
     those who are closely associated with the group and exert 
     leadership over the group but may not technically be a 
     member. This is not a mere membership provision.
       (4) In order to make the ``leaders'' of more terrorist 
     organizations excludable without having to establish that 
     they personally have engaged in terrorist activity, the 
     revision gives the President authority to designate terrorist 
     organizations based on a finding that they are detrimental to 
     the interests of the United States. (Presently, only the PLO 
     is expressly cited in the existing statute.) Implicit with 
     the right to designate is the authority to remove an 
     organization that the President has previously designated. By 
     giving the President this authority, which is similar to 
     subsection (f) of section 212 (8 U.S.C. 212(f)), the 
     President can impose stricter travel limitations on the 
     leaders of terrorist organizations who desire to visit the 
     United States. For a leader of a
      designated terrorist organization to obtain a visa, he would 
     have to solicit a waiver from the Attorney General under 
     subsection 212(d)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)) to obtain 
     temporary admission. In deciding whether or not to grant 
     to waiver, the Attorney General could, should he/she 
     decide to grant a waiver, impose whatever restrictions are 
     warranted on the alien's presence in the United States.
       (5) The words ``it has been'' are inserted in the first 
     sentence of the definition of ``terrorism activity'' in order 
     to make clear that it is United States law (federal or state) 
     which is used to determine whether overseas violent activity 
     is considered criminal.
       (6) The term ``weapons'' is added to clause (V)(b) in the 
     definition of ``terrorist activity'' in order to cover those 
     murders carried out by deadly and dangerous devices other 
     than firearms or explosives (e.g., a knife).
       (7) The knowledge requirement in clause (III) of the 
     definition of ``engage in terrorism activity'' was deleted as 
     unnecessary, as similar language has been added in the 
     beginning of the definition.
       (8) The term ``documentation or'' has been added to ``false 
     identification'' in clause (III) of the definition of 
     ``engage in terrorism activity'' to encompass other forms of 
     false documentation that might be provided to facilitate 
     terrorism activity. The term ``false identification'' would 
     include stolen, counterfeit, forged and falsely made 
     identification documents.
       Subsection 202(b) amends section 241(a)(4)(B) of the INA (8 
     U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)(B)) to reflect the change in section 
     212(a)(3)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)) from ``terrorist'' to 
     ``terrorism.''
       Subsection 202(c) adds a sentence to section 291 of the INA 
     (8 U.S.C. 1361) to clarify that discovery by the alien in a 
     deportation proceeding is limited only to those documents in 
     the INS file relating to the alien's entry. Section 291 was 
     never intended to authorized discovery beyond this limited 
     category of documents.
       Subsection 202(d) makes an important change to section 
     242(b)(3) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(3)). First, in the 
     case of non-resident aliens it precludes the alien's access 
     to any classified information that is being used to deport 
     them. Secondly, it denies non-resident aliens any rights 
     under 18 U.S.C. 3504 (relating to access concerning sources 
     of evidence) and 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (relating to the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) during their 
     deportation.


                              Section 203

       Section 203 amends the confidentiality provisions contained 
     in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for an alien's 
     application relating to legalization (section 245A(c)(5) of 
     the INA (8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(c)(5)) or special agricultural 
     worker status (section 210(b)(5) and (6) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 
     1160(b)(5) and (6)). At present, it is very difficult to 
     obtain crucial information contained in these files, such as 
     fingerprints, photographs, addresses, etc., when the alien 
     becomes a subject of a criminal investigation. In both the 
     World Trade Center bombing and the killing of CIA personnel 
     on their way to work at CIA Headquarters, the existing 
     confidentiality provisions hindered law enforcement efforts.
       Subsection 203(a) amends the confidential provisions for 
     legalization files. It permits access to the file if a 
     federal court finds that the file relates to an alien who has 
     been killed or severely incapacitated or is the suspect of an 
     aggravated felony. Subsection 203(b) makes comparable 
     amendments to the confidentiality requirements relating to 
     special agricultural worker status.


                              Section 301

       Section 301 authorizes the government to regulate or 
     prohibit any person or organization within the United States 
     and any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
     States anywhere from raising or providing funds for use by 
     any foreign organization which the President has designated 
     to be engaged in terrorism activities. Such designation would 
     be based on a Presidential finding that the organization (1) 
     engages in terrorism activity as defined in the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act and (2) its terrorism activities threaten 
     the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the 
     United States.
       The fund-raising provision provides a licensing mechanism 
     under which funds may be provided to a designated 
     organization based on a showing that the money will be used 
     exclusively for religious, charitable, literary, or 
     educational purposes. It includes 
     [[Page S2523]] both administrative and judicial enforcement 
     procedures, as well as a special classified information 
     procedures applicable to certain types of civil litigation. 
     The term ``person'' is defined to include individuals, 
     partnerships, associations, groups, corporations or other 
     organizations.
       Subsection 301(a) creates a new section 2339B in title 18, 
     United States Code, entitled ``Fund-raising for terrorist 
     organizations.''
       Subsection 2339B(a) sets forth the congressional findings 
     and purposes for the fund-raising statute.
       Subsection 2339B(b) gives the President the authority to 
     issue regulations to regulate or prohibit any person within 
     the United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction 
     of the United States anywhere from raising or providing funds 
     for use by, or from engaging in financial transactions with, 
     any foreign organization which the President, pursuant to 
     subsection 2339B(c), has designated to be engaged in 
     terrorism activities.
       Subsection 2339B(c)(1) grants the President the authority 
     to designate any foreign organization, if he finds that (1) 
     the organization engages in terrorism activity (as defined in 
     section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)) and (2) the organization's terrorism 
     activities threaten the national security, foreign policy or 
     economy of the United States. Subsection 2339B(c)(2) grants 
     the President the authority to designate persons who are 
     raising funds for or are acting for or on behalf of a foreign 
     organization designated pursuant to subsection (c)(1).
       Such designations must be published in the Federal 
     Register. The President is authorized to revoke any 
     designation. A designation under subsection (c)(1) is 
     conclusive and is not reviewable by a court in a criminal 
     prosecution.
       Subsection 2339B(d) sets forth the prohibited activities. 
     Paragraph (1) makes it unlawful for any person within the 
     United States, or any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United States anywhere in the world, to raise, receive, 
     or collect funds on behalf of or to furnish, give, transmit, 
     transfer, or provide funds to or for an organization 
     designated by the President unless such activity is done is 
     accordance with a license granted under subsection 2339B(e). 
     Paragraph (2) makes it unlawful for any person within the 
     United States or any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
     the United States anywhere in the world, acting for or or 
     behalf of a designated organization, (1) to transit, 
     transfer, or receive any funds raised in violation of 
     subsection 2339B(d)(1); (2) to transmit, transfer or dispose 
     of any funds in which any designated organization has an 
     interest; or (3) to attempt to do any of the foregoing. The 
     latter provision serves to make it a crime for any person 
     within the United States, or any person subject to the 
     jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to transfer, 
     transfer or dispose of on behalf of a designated organization 
     any funds in which such organization has an interest until 
     after a license has been issued.
       Subsection 2339B(e) requires that any person who desires to 
     solicit funds or transfer funds to any designated 
     organization must obtain a license from the Secretary of the 
     Treasury. Any license issued by the Secretary shall be 
     granted only when the Secretary is
      satisfied that the funds are intended exclusively for 
     religious, charitable, literacy, or educational purposes 
     and that any recipient in any fund-raising chain has 
     effective procedures in place to insure that the funds 
     will be used exclusively for religious, charitable, 
     literary, or educational purposes and will not be used to 
     affect a transfer of funds to be used in terrorism 
     activity. The burden is on the license applicant to 
     convince the Secretary that such procedures do in fact 
     exist. A licensee is required to keep books and records 
     and make such books available for inspection upon the 
     Secretary's request. A licensee is also required to have 
     an agreement with any recipient which permits the 
     Secretary to inspect the recipient's records.
       Subsection 2339B(f) requires that a financial institution 
     which becomes aware that it is in possession of or that it 
     has control over funds in which a designated organization has 
     an interest must ``freeze'' such funds and notify the 
     Secretary of the Treasury. A civil penalty is provided for 
     failure to freeze such funds or report the required 
     information to the Secretary. The term ``financial 
     institution'' has the meaning prescribed in 31 U.S. C. 
     5312(a)(2) and regulations promulgated thereunder. It is the 
     same definition as utilized in the money laundering statute, 
     see 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(6).
       Subsection 2339B(g) divides investigative responsibility 
     for the section between the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Attorney General. This provision thus permits the combination 
     of the administrative and financial expertise of Treasury's 
     Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the intelligence 
     capabilities and criminal investigative techniques of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to be combined together 
     in a highly coordinated manner in order to effectively 
     enforce the requirements of this section while protecting the 
     equities of the nation's national security intelligence 
     gathering community. The provision reflects, as does section 
     407 of the bill, the FBI's role as the lead federal agency 
     for the investigation and prosecution of terrorist activity 
     as well as the prime federal intelligence agency for 
     gathering national security information within the United 
     States.
       Section 2339B(h) gives authority to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Attorney General to require recordkeeping, 
     hold hearings, issue subpoenas, administer oaths and receive 
     evidence.
       Subsection 2339B(i) sets forth the penalties for section 
     2339B. Any person who knowingly violates subsection 2339B(d) 
     can be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for up to ten years, or both. A person who fails 
     to keep records or make records available to the Secretary of 
     the Treasury upon his/her request is subject to a civil 
     penalty of the greater of $50,000 or twice the amount of 
     money which would have been documented had the books and 
     records been properly maintained. A financial institution 
     which fails to take the actions required pursuant to 
     subsection (f)(1) is subject to civil penalty of the greater 
     of $50,000 or twice the amount of money of which the 
     financial institution was required to retain possession or 
     control. Any person who violates any license, order, 
     direction, or regulation issued pursuant to the section is 
     subject to a civil penalty of the greater of $50,000 per 
     violation or twice the value of the violation. A person who 
     intentionally fails to maintain or make available the 
     required books or records also commits a crime subject to a 
     fine under title 18, United States Code, or imprisonment for 
     up to five years, or both. Any organization convicted of an 
     offense under subsections 2339B(i)(1) or (3) shall forfeit 
     any charitable designation it might have received under the 
     Internal Revenue Code.
       Subsection 2339B(j)(1) gives the Attorney General the right 
     to seek an injunction to block any violation of section 
     2339B. An injunctive proceeding is normally governed by the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but if the respondent is 
     under indictment, discovery is to be governed by the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure.
       Subsection 2339B(k) states that there is extra territorial 
     jurisdiction over activity prohibited by section 2339B which 
     is conducted outside the United States. This insures that 
     foreign persons outside the United States are covered by this 
     statute if they aid, assist, counsel, command, induce or 
     procure, or conspire with, persons within the United States 
     or persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
     anywhere in the world to violate the fund-raising prohibition 
     (18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2, and 371).
       Subsection 2339B(1) sets forth a special process to protect 
     classified information when the government is the plaintiff 
     in civil proceedings to enforce section 2339B.
       Subsection 2339B(m) sets forth the definitions of 
     ``classified information,'' ``financial institution,'' 
     ``funds,'' ``national security,'' ``person,'' and ``United 
     States.'' Funds are defined to include all currency, coin, 
     and any negotiable or registered security that can be used as 
     a method of transferring money.
       Subsection 301(c) further amends section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) to include leaders of any terrorist 
     organization designated under the fund-raising statute (18 
     U.S.C. 2339B) as an aliens deemed to be excludable under the 
     immigration laws.
       Subsection 301(d) makes the special classified information 
     provisions of 18 U.S.C. 2339B(k) applicable to similar civil 
     proceedings under the International Emergency Economic Powers 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.).


                              Section 401

       This section states that title IV may be cited as the 
     ``Marking of Plastic Explosives for Detection Act.''


                              Section 402

       This section sets forth the congressional findings 
     concerning the criminal use of plastic explosives and the 
     prevention of such use through the marking of plastic 
     explosives for the purpose of detection. This section also 
     states that the purpose of the legislation is to implement 
     the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the 
     Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 1991 (the 
     Convention).


                              Section 403

       This section sets forth three new definitions for 18 U.S.C. 
     841. It amends 18 U.S.C. 841 by adding a new subsection (o) 
     which defines the term ``Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives.'' The definition provides the full title of the 
     Convention, ``Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives 
     for the Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 
     1991.'' The definition eliminates the need to repeat the full 
     title of the Convention each time it is used in the bill.
       Section 403 also amends section 841 by adding a new 
     subsection (p) which defines the term ``detection agent.'' 
     The term has been defined to include four specified chemical 
     substances and any other substance specified by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury by regulation. The four specified chemical 
     substances, ethylene glycol dinitrate (EDGN), 2, 3-dimethyl-
     2-3-dinitrobutane (DMNB), paramononitrotoluene (p-MNT), and 
     ortho-mononitrotoluene (o-MNT), are in Part 2 of the 
     Technical Annex to the Convention. The required minimum 
     concentration of the four substances in the finished plastic 
     explosives was also taken from the Technical Annex. The 
     definition of ``detection agent'' has been drafted to require 
     that the particular substance be introduced into a plastic 
     explosive in such a manner as to achieve homogeneous 
     distribution in the finished explosive. The purpose of 
     homogeneous distribution is to assure that the detection 
     agent can be detected by vapor detection equipment.
       [[Page S2524]] New section 841(p)(5) would permit the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to add other substances to the list 
     of approved detection agents by regulation, in consultation 
     with the Secretaries of State and Defense. Permitting the 
     Secretary to designate detection agents other than the four 
     listed in the statute would facilitate the use of other 
     substances without the need for legislation. Only those 
     substances which have been added to the table in Part 2 of
      the Technical Annex, pursuant to Articles VI and VII of the 
     Convention, may be designated as approved detection agents 
     under section 841(p)(5). Since the Department of Defense 
     (DOD) is the largest domestic consumer of plastic 
     explosives (over 95 percent of domestic production), it is 
     appropriate that DOD provide guidance to the Treasury 
     Department in approving additional substances as detection 
     agents.
       Finally, section 403 adds a new subsection (q) to section 
     841 which defines the term ``plastic explosive.'' The 
     definition is based on the definition of ``explosives'' in 
     Article I of the Convention and Part I of the Technical 
     Annex.


                              Section 404

       This section adds subsections (l)-(o) to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 842 
     proscribing certain conduct relating to unmarked plastic 
     explosives.
       Section 842(l) would make it unlawful for any person to 
     manufacture within the United States any plastic explosive 
     which does not contain a detection agent.
       Section 842(m) would make it unlawful for any person to 
     import into the United States or export from the United 
     States any plastic explosive which does not contain a 
     detection agent. However, importations and exportations of 
     plastic explosives imported into or manufactured in the 
     United States prior to the effective date of the Act by 
     Federal law enforcement agencies or the National Guard of any 
     State, or by any person acting on behalf of such entities, 
     would be exempted from this prohibition for a period of 15 
     years after the Convention is entered into force with respect 
     to the United States. This provision implements Article IV, 
     paragraph 3, of the Convention. Section 842(m) is drafted to 
     specifically include the National Guard of any State and 
     military reserve units within the 15-year exemption.
       The purpose of the 15-year exemption is to give the 
     military and Federal law enforcement agencies a period of 15 
     years to use up the considerable stock of unmarked plastic 
     explosives they now have on hand. This exception would also 
     permit DOD to export its unmarked plastic explosives to 
     United States forces in other countries during the 15-year 
     period.
       Section 842(n)(1) would make it unlawful for any person to 
     ship, transport, transfer, receive, or possess any plastic 
     explosive which does not contain a detection agent. Section 
     842(n)(2)(A) would provide an exception to the prohibition of 
     section 842(n)(1) for any plastic explosive which was 
     imported, brought into, or manufactured in the United States 
     prior to the effective date of the Act by any person during a 
     period not exceeding three years after the effective date of 
     the Act. This provision implements Article IV, paragraph 2, 
     of the Convention, and provides an exemption from the 
     prohibitions of section 842(n)(1) for any person, including 
     State and local governmental entities and other Federal 
     agencies, for a period of three years after the effective 
     date of the Act.
       Section 842(n)(2)(B) would provide an exception to the 
     prohibition of section 842(n)(1) for any plastic explosive 
     which was imported, brought into, or manfuactured in the 
     United States prior to the effective date of the Act by any 
     Federal law enforcement agency or the United States military 
     or by any Federal law enforcement agency or the United States 
     military or by any person acting on behalf of such entities 
     for a period of 15 years after the date of entry into force 
     of the Convention with respect to the United States. This 
     provision implements Article IV, paragraph 3, of the 
     Convention. The provision was drafted to specifically include 
     the National Guard of any State and military reserve units 
     within the 15-year exemption.
       Section 842(o) would make it unlawful for any person, other 
     than a Federal agency possessing any plastic explosive on the 
     effective date of the Act, to fail to report to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury within 120 days from the effective date of 
     the Act the quantity of plastic explosive possessed, the 
     manufacturer or importer of the explosive, any identifying 
     markings on the explosive, and any other information as 
     required by regulation. This provision implements Article IV, 
     paragraph 1, of the Convention, which requires each State 
     Party to take all necessary measures to exercise control over 
     the possession and transfer of possession of unmarked 
     explosives which have been manufactured in or imported into 
     its territory prior to the entry into force of the Convention 
     with respect to that State. This provision was drafted to 
     specifically include the National Guard of any State and 
     military reserve units as agencies which are exempt from the 
     reporting requirement.


                              Section 405

       This section amends 18 U.S.C. 844(a), which provides 
     penalties for violating certain provisions of 18 U.S.C. 842. 
     The amended section would add sections 842(l)-(o) to the list 
     of offenses punishable by a fine under 18 U.S.C. 3571 of not 
     more than $250,000 in the case of an individual, and $500,000 
     in the case of an organization, or by imprisonment for not 
     more than 10 years, or both.


                              Section 406

       This section amends 18 U.S.C. 845(a)(1), which excepts from 
     the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 40 any aspect of the 
     transportation of explosive materials regulated by the United 
     States Department of Transportation. The purpose of the 
     amendment is to make it clear that the exception in section 
     845(a)(1) applies only to those aspects of such 
     transportation relating to safety. This amendment would 
     overcome the effect of the adverse decisions in United States 
     v. Petrykievicz, 809 F. Supp. 794 (W.D. Wash. 1992), and 
     United States v. Illingworth, 489 F.2d 264 (10th Cir.) 1973). 
     In those cases, the court held that the language of section 
     845(a)(1) resulted in the defendant's exemption from all the 
     provisions of the chapter, including the requirement of a 
     license or permit to ship, transport, or receive explosives 
     in interstate or foreign commerce.
       The list of offenses which are not subject to the 
     exceptions of section 845(a) has also been amended to include 
     the new plastic explosives offenses in sections 842(l)-(m).
       Section 406 also adds a new subsection (c) to 18 U.S.C. 845 
     to provide certain affirmative defenses to the new plastic 
     explosives offenses in sections 842(l)-(o). This provision 
     implements Part 1, paragraph II, of the Technical Annex to 
     the Convention, which relates to exceptions for limited 
     quantities of explosives. The affirmative defenses of 18 
     U.S.C. 845(c) could be asserted by defendants in criminal 
     prosecutions, persons having an interest in explosive 
     materials seized and forfeited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 844(c), 
     and persons challenging the revocation or denial of their 
     explosives licenses or permits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 845(c).
       The three affirmative defenses specified in section 
     845(c)(1) all relate to research, training, and testing, and 
     require that the proponent provide evidence that there was a 
     ``small amount'' of plastic explosive intended for and 
     utilized solely in the specified activities. The 
     respresentatives to the Conference which resulted in the 
     Convention agreed that the amount of unmarked explosive 
     permitted to be used for these purposes should be 
     ``limited,'' but were unable to agree on a specific quantity. 
     The Secretary of the Treasury may issue regulations defining 
     what quantity of plastic explosives is a ``small amount'' or 
     may leave it up to the proponent of the affirmative defense 
     to prove that a ``small amount'' of explosives was imported, 
     manufactured, possessed, etc. The statute is drafted to 
     require that the proponent establish the affirmative defense 
     by a preponderance of the evidence.
       Section 845(c)(2) would create another affirmative defense 
     to the plastic explosives offenses, which implements Article 
     IV of the Convention, and Part I, Paragraph II(d), of the 
     Technical Annex. This provision would require that proponent 
     to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 
     plastic explosive was, within three years after the date of 
     entry into force of the Convention with respect to the United 
     States, incorporated in a military device that is intended to 
     become or has become the
      property of any Federal military or law enforcement agency. 
     Furthermore, the proponent must prove that the plastic 
     explosive has remained an integral part of the military 
     device for the exemption to apply. This requirement would 
     discourage the removal of unmarked plastic explosives from 
     bombs, mines, and other military devices manufactured for 
     the United States military during the three year period. 
     The provision was drafted to specifically include the 
     National Guard of any State and military reserve units 
     within the exemption. The term ``military device'' has 
     been defined in accordance with the definition of that 
     term in Article I of the Convention.
       Requiring that the exceptions of section 845(c) be 
     established as an affirmative defense would facilitate the 
     prosecution of violations of the new plastic explosive 
     provisions by terrorists and other dangerous criminals in 
     that the Government would not have to bear the difficult, if 
     not impossible, burden of proving that the explosives were 
     not used in one of the research, training, testing, or 
     military device exceptions specified in the statute. The 
     proponent of the affirmative defense would be in the best 
     position to establish the existence of one of the exceptions.
       The approach taken in section 845(c) is patterned after the 
     affirmative defense provision in 18 U.S.C. 176 and 177, 
     relating to the use of biological weapons.


                              Section 407

       This section provides the Attorney General investigative 
     authority over new subsections (m) and (n) of section 842, 
     relating to the importation, exportation, shipping, 
     transferring, receipt or possession of unmarked plastic 
     explosives, when such provisions are violated by terrorist/
     revolutionary groups or individuals. This authority is 
     consistent with the existing March 1, 1973, memorandum of 
     understanding on the investigation of explosives violations 
     between the Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the 
     United States Postal Service. The section also makes it clear 
     that, consistent with current national policy, the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead Federal agency for 
     investigating all violations of Federal law involving 
     terrorism when the FBI has been given by statute or 
     regulation investigative authority over the relevant offense. 
     See 28 U.S.C. 523 and 28 C.F.R. 0.85(1).
                       [[Page S2525]] Section 408

       This section provides that the amendments made by title IV 
     shall take effect one year after the date of enactment. The 
     one year delay should be adequate for manufacturers to obtain 
     sources of one of the specified detection agents and to 
     reformulate the plastic explosives they manufacture to 
     include a detection agent.


                              Section 501

       Section 501 expands the scope and jurisdictional bases 
     under 18 U.S.C. 831 (prohibited transactions involving 
     nuclear materials). It is an effort to modify current law to 
     deal with the increased risk stemming from the destruction of 
     certain nuclear weapons that were once in the arsenal of the 
     former Soviet Union and the lessening of security controls 
     over peaceful nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. 
     Among other things, the bill expands the definition of 
     nuclear materials to include those materials which are less 
     than weapons grade but are dangerous to human life and/or the 
     environment. It also expands the jurisdictional bases to 
     reach all situations where a U.S. national or corporation is 
     the victim or perpetrator of an offense. The bill expressly 
     covers those situations where a threat to do some form of 
     prohibited activity is directed at the United States 
     Government.
       Subsection 501(a)(1) sets forth a series of findings. 
     Subsection 501(a)(2) sets forth the purpose.
       Subsection 501(b) makes many technical changes to section 
     831 of title 18, United States Code. The ones of substance 
     are:
       (1) Paragraph (1) adds ``nuclear byproduct material'' to 
     the scope of subsection 831(a).
       (2) Paragraph (2) ensures coverage of situations under 
     subsection 831(a)(1)(A) where there is substantial damage to 
     the environment.
       (3) Paragraph (3) rewrites subsection 831(a)(1)(B) in the 
     following ways:
       (A) drops the requirement that the defendant ``know'' that 
     circumstances exist which are dangerous to life or property. 
     If such circumstances are created through the intentional 
     actions of the defendant, criminal sanctions are appropriate 
     due to the inherently dangerous nature of nuclear material 
     and the extraordinary risk of harm created.
       (B) adds substantial damage to the environment; and
       (C) adds language (i.e., ``such circumstances are 
     represented to the defendant to exist'') to cover the 
     situation of sales by undercover law enforcement to 
     prospective buyers of materials purported to be nuclear 
     materials. This is comparable to the new 18 U.S.C. 21 created 
     by section 320910 of Pub. L. 103-322 for undercover 
     operations.
       (4) Paragraph (4) expands the threat provision of 
     subsection 831(a)(6) to cover threats to do substantial 
     damage to the environment.
       (5) Paragraph (5) expands the jurisdiction in subsection 
     831(c)(2) beyond those situations where the offender is a 
     United States national. As revised, it includes all 
     situations, anywhere in the world where a United States 
     national is the victim of an offense or where the perpetrator 
     or victim of the offense is a ``United States corporation or 
     other legal entity.''
       (6) Paragraph (6) drops the requirement in subsection 
     831(c)(3) that the nuclear material be for ``peaceful 
     purposes'', i.e., non-military, and that it be in use, 
     storage, or transport. Hence, the provision now reaches any 
     alien who commits an offense under subsection 831(a) overseas 
     and is subsequently found in the United States. Of course, if 
     the target of the offense was a U.S. national or corporation 
     or the U.S. Government there would be jurisdiction of the 
     offense under another provision of subsection 831(c), even 
     when the perpetrator is still overseas. The activities 
     prohibited by subsection 831(a) are so serious that all 
     civilized nations have recognized their obligations to 
     confront this growing problem because of its inherent 
     dangerousness.
       (7) Paragraph (8) deletes the requirement for subsection 
     831(c)(4) that the nuclear materials being shipped to or from 
     the United States be for peaceful purposes. Hence, military 
     nuclear materials are now encompassed under subsection 
     831(c)(4). It also adds nuclear byproduct material to the 
     provision.
       (8) Paragraph (10) adds a new paragraph (5) to subsection 
     831(c) to ensure that there is federal jurisdiction when the 
     governmental entity being threatened under subsection 
     831(a)(5) is the United States and when the threat under 
     subsection 831(a)(6) is directed at the United States.
       (9) Paragraph (11) deletes an outmoded requirement, so that 
     all plutonium is now covered.
       (10) Paragraph (14) adds ``nuclear byproduct material'' to 
     the definitions as a new subsection 831(f)(2). Nuclear 
     byproduct material means any material containing any 
     radioactive isotope created through an irradiation process in 
     the operation of a nuclear reactor or accelerator. This will 
     extend the prohibitions of this statute to materials that are 
     not capable of creating a nuclear explosion, but which, 
     nevertheless, could be used to create a radioactive dispersal 
     device capable of spreading highly dangerous radioactive 
     material throughout an area.
       (11) Paragraph (17) adds to subsection 831(f) the 
     definitions for the terms ``national of the United States'' 
     and ``United States corporation or other legal entity.''


                              section 601

       This section deletes subsection (c) of the material support 
     statute (18 U.S.C. 2339A(c)) enacted as part of the 1994 
     crime bill (Pub. L. 103-322). It would also correct erroneous 
     statutory references and typographical errors (i.e., changes 
     ``36'' to ``37,'' ``2331'' to ``2332,'' ``2339'' to 
     ``2332a,'' and ``of an escape'' to ``or an escape'').
       Subsection 2339A(c) of title 18, United States Code, 
     imposes an unprecedented and impractical burden on law 
     enforcement concerning the initiation and continuation of 
     criminal investigations under 18 U.S.C. 2339A. Specifically, 
     subsection (c) provides that the government may not initiate 
     or continue an investigation under this statute unless the 
     existing facts reasonably indicate that the target knowingly 
     and intentionally has engaged, is engaged, or will engage in 
     a violation of federal criminal law. In other words, the 
     government must have facts that reasonably indicate each 
     element of the offense before it even initiates (or 
     continues) an investigation. The normal investigative 
     practice is that the government obtains evidence which 
     indicates that a violation may exist if certain other 
     elements of the offense, particularly the knowledge or intent 
     elements, are also present. The government then seeks to 
     obtain evidence which establishes or negates the existence of 
     the other elements. If such evidence is found to exist, the 
     investigation continues to obtain the necessary evidence to 
     prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on every element.
       As drafted, however, subsection (c) reverses the natural 
     flow of a criminal investigation. It is an impediment to the 
     effective use of section 2339A. Moreover, the provision would 
     generate unproductive litigation which would only serve to 
     delay the prosecution of any offender, drain limited 
     investigative and prosecutive resources, and hinder efforts 
     to thwart terrorism. It is the position of the Department of 
     Justice that the investigative guidelines issued by the 
     Attorney General adequately protect individual rights while 
     providing for effective law enforcement.
       Section 601 deletes subsection (c) retroactive to September 
     13, 1994, the date that the 1994 crime bill was signed into 
     law. Since subsection (c) is procedural in nature, the 
     retroactive nature of the proposed deletion does not pose a 
     constitutional problem. It should suffice, however, to 
     preclude a defendant from availing himself of subsection (c) 
     in the event that the conduct charged in a subsequent 
     indictment arose between September 13, 1994, and the 
     enactment of section 601.
       Section 102(c) of this Act also proposes to broaden the 
     scope of the material support statute by incorporating, as 
     one of the predicate offenses, the proposed statute relating 
     to conspiracies within the United States to commit terrorist 
     acts abroad.


                              section 602

       This section would add coverage for threats to the weapons 
     of mass destruction statute (18 U.S.C. 2332a). The offense of 
     using a weapon of mass destruction (or attempting or 
     conspiring to use such a weapon) was created by section 60023 
     of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     (P.L. 103-322). However, no threat offense was included. A 
     threat to use such a weapon is a foreseeable tactic to be 
     employed by a terrorist group. Further, it could necessitate 
     a serious and costly government response, e.g. efforts to 
     eliminate the threat, evacuation of a city or facility, etc. 
     Accordingly, it seems clearly appropriate to make threatening 
     to use a weapon of mass destruction a federal offense.
       This section amends subsection (a) to include threats among 
     the proscribed offenders. Further, it redesignates subsection 
     (b) of section 2332a as subsection (c) and provides a new 
     subsection (b). The new subsection (b) ensures jurisdiction 
     when a national of the United States outside the United 
     States is the perpetrator of the threat offense.


                              section 603

       Section 603 adds to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 
     Organizations (RICO) statute certain federal violent crimes 
     relating to murder and destruction of property. These are the 
     offenses most often committed by terrorists. Many violent 
     crimes committed within the United States are encompassed as 
     predicate acts for the RICO statute. However, RICO does not 
     presently reach most terrorist acts directed against United 
     States interests overseas. Hence, this section adds to RICO 
     extraterritorial terrorism violations. When an organization 
     commits a series of terrorist acts, a RICO theory of 
     prosecution may be the optimal means of proceeding.
       The offenses being added to as predicate acts to RICO are: 
     18 U.S.C. 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), 37 
     (relating to violence at international airports), 115 
     (relating to influencing, impeding or retaliating against a 
     federal official by threatening or injuring a family member) 
     351 (relating to Congressional or Cabinet officer 
     assassination), 831 (relating to prohibited transactions 
     involving nuclear materials as amended by section 501 of this 
     bill), 844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives 
     or fire of government property or property affecting 
     interstate or foreign commerce), 956 (relating to conspiracy 
     to kill, kidnap, maim or injure property certain property in 
     a foreign country as amended by section 102 of this bill), 
     1111 (relating to murder), 1114 (relating to murder of United 
     States law enforcement officials), 1116 (relating to murder 
     of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally 
     protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 
     (relating to willful injury of 
     [[Page S2526]] government property), 1363 (relating to 
     destruction of property within the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction), 1751 (relating to Presidential 
     assassination), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime 
     navigation as amended by section 606 of this bill), 2281 
     (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 
     (relating to terrorist acts abroad against United States 
     (nationals), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass 
     destruction as amended by section 602 of this bill), 2332b 
     (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries created by section 101 of this bill), and 2339A 
     (relating to providing material support to terrorists as 
     amended by sections 102(c) and 601 of this bill), and 49 
     U.S.C. 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy).


                              section 604

       18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(A) makes it a felony to transfer funds 
     from the United States to a place outside the United States 
     if the transfer is done with the intent to promote the 
     carrying on of ``specified unlawful activity.'' The term 
     ``specified unlawful activity'' is defined in section 
     1956(c)(7)(B) to include an offense against a foreign nation 
     involving kidnapping, robbery, or extortion as well as 
     certain offenses involving controlled substances and fraud by 
     or against a foreign bank. It does not, however, include 
     murder or the destruction of property by means of explosive 
     or fire.
       In recent investigations of international terrorist 
     organizations, it has been discovered that certain of these 
     organizations collect money in the United States and then 
     transfer the money outside the United States for use in 
     connection with acts of terrorism which may involve murder or 
     destruction of property in foreign nations.
       In order to prevent terrorist organizations from collecting 
     money inside the United States which is used to finance 
     murders and destruction of property, subsection (a) would add 
     ``murder and destruction of property by explosive or fire'' 
     to the list of specified unlawful activity in section 
     1956(c)(7)(B)(ii). This amendment would also apply to cases 
     where the proceeds of any such murder or property destruction 
     would be laundered in the United States.
       Subsection (b) would add to the definitions of ``specified 
     unlawful activity'' in section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, those violent federal offenses most 
     likely to be
      violated by terrorists overseas. Hence, if during the course 
     of perpetrating these violent offenses the terrorists 
     transferred funds in interstate or foreign commerce to 
     promote the carrying on of any of these offenses, they 
     would also violate the money laundering statute. The 
     offenses added are the same as those added to the RICO 
     statute by section 603 of this bill, except for 18 U.S.C. 
     1203 (relating to hostage taking) which is already 
     contained as a money laundering predicate. It should be 
     noted that if section 603 of this bill is enacted, 
     subsection 604(b) need not be enacted because any offense 
     which is included as a RICO predicate is automatically a 
     predicate also under the money laundering statute.


                              section 605

       This section would add a number of terrorism-related 
     offenses to 18 U.S.C. 2516, thereby permitting court-
     authorized interception of wire, oral, and electronic 
     communications when the rigorous requirements of chapter 119 
     (including section 2516) are met. Presently, section 2516 
     contains a long list of felony offenses for which electronic 
     surveillance is authorized. The list has grown periodically 
     since the initial enactment of the section in 1968. As a 
     result, coverage of terrorism-related offenses is not 
     comprehensive. Section 2516 already includes such offenses as 
     hostage taking under 18 U.S.C. 1203, train wrecking under 18 
     U.S.C. 1992, and sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel under 
     42 U.S.C. 2284.
       The instant proposal would add 18 U.S.C. 956, as amended by 
     section 103 of this bill, and 960 (proscribing conspiracies 
     to harm people or damage certain property of a foreign nation 
     with which the United States is not at war and organizing or 
     participating in from within the United States an expedition 
     against a friendly nation), 49 U.S.C. 46502 (relating to 
     aircraft piracy), and 18 U.S.C. 2332 (relating to killing 
     United States nationals abroad with intent to coerce the 
     government or a civilian population). It would also add 18 
     U.S.C. 2332a (relating to offenses involving weapons of mass 
     destruction), 18 U.S.C. 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism 
     transcending national boundaries, which offense is created by 
     section 101 of this bill), 18 U.S.C. 2339A (relating to 
     providing material support to terrorists), and 18 U.S.C. 37 
     (relating to violence at airports).
       Terrorism offenses frequently require the use of court-
     authorized electronic surveillance techniques because of the 
     clandestine and violent nature of the groups that commit such 
     crimes. Adding the proposed predicate offenses to 18 U.S.C. 
     2516 would therefore facilitate the ability of law 
     enforcement successfully to investigate, and sometimes 
     prevent, such offenses in the future.


                              section 606

       In considering legislative proposals which were 
     incorporated into the 1994 crime bill (Pub. L. 103-322), 
     Congress altered the Department's proposed formulation of the 
     jurisdictional provisions of the Maritime Violence 
     legislation, the Violence Against Maritime Fixed Platforms 
     legislation, and Violence at International Airports 
     legislation, because of a concern over possible federal 
     coverage of violence stemming from labor disputes. The 
     altered language created uncertainties which were brought to 
     the attention of Congress. Subsequently, the labor violence 
     concern was addressed by adoption of the bar to prosecution 
     contained in 18 U.S.C. 37(c), 2280(c) and 2281(c). With the 
     adoption of this bar, the sections were to revert to their 
     original wording, as submitted by the Department of Justice. 
     While sections 37 and 2281 were properly corrected, the 
     disturbing altered language was inadvertently left in section 
     2280.
       Consequently, as clauses (ii) and (iii) of subsection 
     2280(b)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, are presently 
     written, there would be no federal jurisdiction over a 
     prohibited act within the United States by anyone (alien of 
     citizen) if there was a state crime, regardless of whether 
     the state crime is a felony. Moreover, the Maritime 
     Convention mandated that the United States assert 
     jurisdiction when a United States national does a prohibited 
     act anywhere against any covered ship. Limiting jurisdiction 
     over prohibited acts committed by United States nationals to 
     those directed against only foreign ships and ships outside 
     the United States does not fulfill our treaty 
     responsibilities to guard against all wrongful conduct by our 
     own nationals.
       Moreover, as presently drafted, there is no federal 
     jurisdiction over alien attacks against foreign vessels 
     within the United States, except in the unlikely situation 
     that no state crime is involved. This is a potentially 
     serious gap. Finally, until the federal criminal jurisdiction 
     over the expanded portion of the territorial sea of the 
     United States is clarified, there remains some doubt about 
     federal criminal jurisdiction over aliens committing 
     prohibited acts against foreign vessels in the expanded 
     portion of the territorial sea of the United States (i.e., 
     from 3 to 12 nautical miles out). Consequently, striking the 
     limiting phrases in clauses (ii) and (iii) ensures federal 
     jurisdiction, unless the bar to prosecution under subsection 
     2280(c) relating to labor disputes is applicable, in all 
     situations that are required by the Maritime Convention.


                              section 607

       This section expands federal jurisdiction over certain bomb 
     threats or hoaxes. Presently, 18 U.S.C. 844(e), covers 
     threats to damage by fire or explosive property protected by 
     18 U.S.C. 844(f) or (i), if the United States mails, the 
     telephone or some other instrument of commerce is used to 
     convey the threat or the false information. Section 607 
     removes any jurisdictional nexus for the means used to convey 
     the threat or false information. A sufficient jurisdictional 
     nexus is contained in the targeted property itself, i.e., the 
     property (1) belongs to the United States Government, (2) is 
     owned by an organization receiving federal funds, or (3) is 
     used in or affects interstate or foreign commerce. The threat 
     provision has also been drafted to cover a threat to commit 
     an arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. 81 against property 
     located in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
     of the United States.


                              section 608

       This section would amend the explosives chapter of title 18 
     to provide generally that a conspiracy to commit an offense 
     under that chapter is punishable by the same maximum term as 
     that applicable to the substantive offense that was the 
     object of the conspiracy. In contrast, the general conspiracy 
     statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, provides for a maximum of five years' 
     imprisonment. This provision accords with several recent 
     Congressional enactments, including 21 U.S.C. 846 (applicable 
     to drug conspiracies) and 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) (applicable to 
     money laundering conspiracies). See also section 320105 of 
     Pub. Law 103-322, which raised the penalty for the offense of 
     conspiracy to travel interstate with intent to commit murder 
     for hire (18 U.S.C. 1958). This trend in federal law, which 
     is emulated in the penal codes of many States, recognizes 
     that, as the Supreme Court has observed, ``collective 
     criminal agreement--partnership in crime--presents a greater 
     potential threat to the public than individual delicts.'' 
     Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587, 593 (1961); accord 
     United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 693-4 (1975).
       Section 608 includes the introductory phrase ``[e]xcept as 
     provided in this section'' in order to take account of one 
     area where a different maximum penalty will apply. Section 
     110518(b) of Pub. Law 103-322 enacted a special twenty-year 
     maximum prison penalty (18 U.S.C. 844(m)) for conspiracies to 
     violate 18 U.S.C. 844(h), which prohibits using an explosive 
     to commit certain crimes and which carries a mandatory five-
     year prison term for the completed crime. Like section 
     844(m), the proposed amendment exempts the penalty of death 
     for a conspiracy offense.


                              section 609

       Section 609 would cure an anomaly in 18 U.S.C. 115. The 
     statute presently punishes violent crimes against the 
     immediate families of certain former federal officials and 
     law enforcement officers (including prosecutors) in 
     retaliation for acts undertaken while the former official was 
     in office. However, the former official is not protected 
     against such crimes. Federal investigators, prosecutors, and 
     judges who are involved in terrorism cases are often the 
     subject of death threats. The danger posed to the safety of 
     such officers does not necessarily abate when they leave 
     government service. Former United States officials should be 
     protected by federal law against retaliation directed at 
     [[Page S2527]] the past performance of their official duties. 
     Section 609 would provide such protection.


                              section 610

       The changes made by this section are similar to that made 
     by section 608 for explosives conspiracies.
       This section adds ``conspiracy'' to several offenses likely 
     to be committed by terrorists. Conspiracy is added to the 
     offense itself to ensure that coconspirators are subject to 
     the same penalty applicable to those perpetrators who attempt 
     or complete the offense. Presently, the maximum possible 
     imprisonment provided under the general conspiracy statute, 
     18 U.S.C. 371, is only five years. The offenses for which 
     conspiracy is being added are: 18 U.S.C. 32 (destruction of 
     aircraft), 37 (violence at airports serving international 
     civil aviation), 115 (certain violent crimes against former 
     federal officials, added by section 609, and family members 
     of current or former federal officials), 175 (prohibitions 
     with respect to biological weapons), 1203 (hostage taking), 
     2280 (violence against maritime navigation), and 2281 
     (violence against maritime fixed platforms), and 49 U.S.C. 
     46502 (relating to aircraft piracy).


                              section 701

       This section sets forth the congressional findings for 
     title VII


                              section 702

       Amending subsection 573(d) of chapter 8 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa2) would allow more 
     flexibility and efficiency in the Department of State's 
     Antiterrorism Training Assistance (ATA) program by permitting 
     more courses to be taught overseas and allowing for 
     instructors to teach overseas for up to 180 days. Current law 
     allows training overseas for only certain specified types of 
     courses and only for up to 30 days. Deleting subsection (f) 
     of section 573 would allow for some personnel expenses for 
     administering the ATA program to be met through the foreign 
     aid appropriation. Currently, all such costs are paid from 
     the Department of State's Salaries and Expenses 
     account.

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee and the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Technology and Government Information, I am pleased to join with the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, 
the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, the 
chairman of the Banking Committee, who has a long history of 
involvement on counter-terrorism activities, Senator D'Amato, and the 
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Kerrey, in 
introducing the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. I note that this 
bipartisan measure was drafted by the Justice and State Departments, 
and I appreciate their input and actions in support of this bill.
  I have been actively involved in the fight against international 
terrorism for many years. In 1986, I introduced the law that made it a 
crime to commit an act of terrorism against a U.S. citizen in a foreign 
country. I also introduced a bill to provide the death penalty for 
terrorism murderers of U.S. citizens. A terrorist death penalty was 
finally enacted in 1994 as part of the crime bill.
  This bill provides a next, but overdue step. It would, for the first 
time, make an act of international terrorism committed in this country 
a violation of Federal law and provide severe punishment, including the 
death penalty in the case of terrorist murders, against those who would 
commit acts of violence against people in the United States for 
political purposes. The legislation will also strengthen the hand of 
U.S. authorities to attack international terrorists by making illegal 
conspiracies to plan overseas terrorist acts in this country.
  A second vital component of the legislation will make it easier to 
deport suspected terrorists from the United States. The current 
procedures of the Immigration and Nationality Act are cumbersome. The 
procedures outlined in this bill will expedite such deportations. 
Although I believe we need to study this issue, I am concerned about 
the due process implications of some of the special procedures that 
permit secret proceedings. I think the subcommittee will need to hold 
hearings on this issue and review it very carefully in order to ensure 
we strike the right balance between our national security needs and the 
requirements of the Constitution.
  The third component of this comprehensive bill will be a restriction 
on fundraising for international terrorist groups in the United States. 
While international organizations will still be able to raise funds in 
the United States for charitable purposes, any fundraising in this 
country for an organization determined by the President to be engaged 
in conducting or supporting international terrorism will be barred. 
Again, we will need to take a very close look at this provision to 
ensure that it comports with the requirements of the first amendment.
  Another important element of this bill is the implementation of the 
Montreal convention on the marking of plastic explosives to improve 
detectability. This important international agreement will make it 
easier to detect plastic explosives to avert tragedies like the bombing 
of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.
  This legislation will provide additional weapons in our Nation's 
battle against international terrorism and on behalf of democracy 
throughout the world. I again wish to thank the administration for its 
work on the bill and the cosponsors. I urge all Members of the Senate 
to join with us in supporting this bill and to see to it that this bill 
is enacted promptly. 
 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, one need only read the cruel and 
tragic litany of terrorist incidents detailed in the first few pages of 
the bill we introduce today, to appreciate the need for--and importance 
of--this measure.
  Though Americans are less at risk of terrorist attack than citizens 
of other countries, we are not immune, and we never will be, so long as 
we are a democracy with open borders. The concrete barriers now gracing 
the entrances to the World Trade Center--and to this very building--are 
a stark reminder of this reality.
  And as a matter of both national security and morality, we cannot 
ignore the fact that terrorists who strike outside our borders, seek--
and receive--aid and comfort within them.
  This is simply intolerable. Free and open societies should not be 
free and open to movements and organizations that facilitate terror and 
wanton violence--whether in our communities, or across the world.
  In the past, the Federal Government has vigorously joined the battle 
against terrorism. But there is clearly more to be done if we are to 
unite with civilized countries throughout the world to protect each 
other and our citizens from those who obey no law.
  The legislation we introduce today, crafted by President Clinton, is 
a crucial next step in bolstering our commitment to fight international 
terror and politically-motivated violence.
  The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act contains a number of important 
provisions. It creates a comprehensive Federal antiterrorism statute 
with stiff penalties. It clarifies that U.S. antiterrorism laws apply 
to each and every attack against U.S. nationals, regardless of where in 
the world an attack occurs.
  This bill also solidifies the President's authority to shut down the 
fundraising activities of terrorist organizations on U.S. soil. And it 
creates a new mechanism that will facilitate the expulsion of aliens 
currently in the United States who are, or have, engaged in terrorist 
activities.
  Let me close by noting that the sponsors of this bill are aware that 
any effort to crack down on terrorism must be sensitive to civil 
liberties concerns. And we must also be mindful of ethnic communities 
that may be affected if this legislation were implemented without due 
care and consideration.
  I know that the Department of Justice has tried to keep these 
concerns in mind in drafting the bill we introduce today. And we stand 
ready to continue a discussion on this subject to ensure that our fight 
against terrorism is prosecuted fairly and judiciously.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the 
introduction of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995. I am pleased 
to be an original cosponsor of this legislation along with Senators 
Biden, Kohl, Specter, and Kerrey.
  Mr. President, what we are seeing today is an exponential increase in 
violence across the globe. Acts that were once thought to be 
implausible are becoming commonplace. We witnessed the bombing of the 
World Trade Center 2 years ago. What we saw there was something that so 
sane person could imagine. Unfortunately, six people were killed and 
over 1,000 were injured. Thankfully, more we not killed and due to 
quick police work the perpetrators 
[[Page S2528]] of this horrible act were quickly apprehended. 
Additionally, special recognition must go out to those responsible for 
the arrest of Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the operation, in 
Pakistan just this week.
  We must prevent another World Trade Center-like operation from taking 
place. We can no longer rely on luck. The bill we are introducing today 
will close loopholes and shore up jurisdiction problems and allow us to 
get our hands on these murdering terrorists before they get a chance to 
act and if need be, to grab them overseas. It offers us essential legal 
tools such as the RICO statute and wiretapping capabilities to stop 
terrorism in its tracks.
  If we wish to fight terrorism, we must have the right tools. This 
bill is a great beginning and will help us to gain the upper hand.
  I am pleased to be joining my colleagues in introducing this 
legislation and I urge my other colleagues in the Senate to join us in 
supporting this important legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 392. A bill to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act 
of 1992 with regard to appointment of members of the Dayton Aviation 
Heritage Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


             the dayton aviation heritage preservation act

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
DeWine, I would like to introduce legislation to correct a concern that 
was raised after the passage of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 
Preservation Act, establishing a national park to preserve historic 
sites in Dayton, OH, that are associated with the Wright brothers and 
the early development of aviation.
  Public Law 102-419 required that members of a commission established 
by the act to assist in preserving and managing the park would be 
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior from recommendations made by 
certain local and State officials. Concerns were raised that the 
language of the act may not be in accordance with the appointments 
clause of the Constitution.
  The legislation that I am introducing today addresses that concern 
and provides that the Secretary will appoint the Commission after 
consideration of recommendations made by those public officials. I hope 
that the Senate committee will consider this legislation expeditiously 
so that the Commission can undertake its full responsibilities.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 393. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from 
transferring any National Forest System lands in the Angeles National 
Forest in California out of Federal ownership for use as a solid waste 
landfill; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


      transfers of national forest land for landfill construction

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a 
bill to prohibit the Forest Service from transferring land in the 
Angeles National Forest for the purposes of constructing a landfill.
  Three times in the past 25 years the Forest Service has studied the 
possibility of transferring land in Elsmere Canyon to a private company 
that wants to build a 190-million-ton landfill on the site. The 
landfill would destroy the canyon, 1,600 acres of resource rich, 
publicly owned land held in trust by the National Forest Service.
  The proposed landfill would sit atop the aquifer that serves the 
entire Santa Clarita Valley, posing a considerable risk of 
contamination to this critical water supply.
  Elsmere Canyon is a major wildlife corridor connecting the San 
Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains. This corridor serves the needs of 
deer, bear, and cougars. If the connection were destroyed, many of 
these animals would end up in residential areas threatening both the 
animals and local residents.
  It is clear that this national forest property is far too valuable to 
be transferred for the purpose of constructing a landfill. We must also 
be concerned about establishing a precedent of using national forest 
lands for this purpose when realistic alternatives exist. It is 
particularly difficult to justify the loss of this resource in a region 
with limited open space and recreational facilities.
  To its credit, the Forest Service has denied each of the requests 
that have been made for the transfer of Elsmere Canyon. But the 
economic and political pressure remains. This bill, introduced in the 
House by Congress Buck McKeon with the support of many of his 
Republican and Democratic colleagues, takes the landfill option off the 
table. It takes a strong position in favor of Forest Service management 
that places the public good before private profit.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will give this bill their early 
and favorable consideration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 393

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in 
     Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF NATIONAL 
                   FOREST LANDS.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall not 
     transfer (by exchange or otherwise) any land owned by the 
     United States and managed by the Secretary as part of the 
     Angeles National Forest to any person unless the instrument 
     of conveyance contains a restriction, enforceable by the 
     Secretary, on the future use of the land prohibiting the use 
     of any portion of the land as a solid waste landfill.
       (b) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall act to enforce a 
     restriction described in subsection (a) as soon as possible 
     when and if violation of the restriction occurs.
                                 ______

      By Mr. D'AMATO;
  S. 394. A bill to clarify the liability of banking and lending 
agencies, lenders, and fiduciaries, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


asset conservation, lender liability, and deposit insurance protection 
                                  act

 Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Asset 
Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 
1995. This bill addresses an urgent issue facing America's banks and 
lenders today--the imposition of massive liability for the cleanup of 
property they hold as security interest on a loan, or as the technical 
owner under a leveraged lease, that is later discovered to be 
contaminated.
  Mr. President, court decisions have eviscerated the ``secured 
creditor exception'' currently contained in CERCLA, or as it is more 
commonly known, the Superfund law. Some courts have scrutinized the 
oversight activities of creditors, and deemed them responsible for 
cleanup costs. For instance, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
deemed a secured creditor liable because it exercised authority over 
the contaminated property ``sufficiently broad to support the inference 
that it could affect hazardous waste disposal decisions if it chose.'' 
As a result, lenders risk being targeted as convenient deep pockets, 
and being forced to foot the cleanup bill for contamination, not 
because they caused it or did not take precautions, but simply because 
they hold a security interest or have some other technical indicia of 
ownership.
  Mr. President, this bill will not permit lenders to evade 
responsibility if they cause environmental contamination. But lenders 
should not be held liable merely because of their deep pockets. The 
imposition of culpability based on legal dictates of commercial or 
fiduciary law is wrong. And, the implications of this legal doctrine 
extend beyond the finance industry. Why? Because the so-called deep 
pockets in the banking and finance industries are not bottomless pits. 
And the ultimate losers in this scheme are not the lenders, but 
potential borrowers, especially small businesses, who may face 
liability. Lenders are reluctant to extend credit and face potential 
liability. Many small businesses and potential homeowners do not 
receive financing because of potential claims. Without access to credit 
small businesses can not get off the ground or grow. So, in the final 
analysis, the victims are economic growth and job creation.
  Mr. President, the refinements embodied in this bill are not new. The 
Senate passed similar legislation in 
[[Page S2529]] 1991 as part of S. 543, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation Improvement Act. The Senate approved a lender liability 
amendment to the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 
1992. Last year, the Banking and Environment Committees worked together 
and crafted language for inclusion in the Superfund reauthorization 
bill. This bill is modeled on final language form that bill, with 
several adjustments. Most significantly, this bill would clarify lender 
liability rules not only with respect to Superfund, but also with 
respect to the underground tank provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act.
  This bill will make clear the potential liability that lenders, 
acting in their capacity as secured creditors, lessors, or fiduciaries, 
face for contamination. Lender liability will be limited to the net 
gain that the lender realizes from the sale of property. Fiduciary 
liability may not exceed the assets held in that fiduciary capacity. 
This bill also addresses the liability problems that the FDIC, RTC, and 
other banking agencies face when they close a financial institution and 
take over the assets of the failed institution. If these assets include 
contaminated property acquired through foreclosure, the agency may 
assume liability for contamination for which it is not responsible. 
Finally, the bill provides clarity as to when creditors will be deemed 
to be owners or operators of contaminated property, and excludes 
federally appointed receivers and conservators, including Federal 
agencies acting in this capacity, from the definition of owner or 
operator.
  Mr. President, the time has come to make it clear that innocent banks 
and lenders should not face liability for environmental contamination 
because they make a loan or protect their security interest. In light 
of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Kelly versus 
Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA's ability to effectively 
address this problem is limited. Congressional action is needed. The 
Senate has an ambitious agenda set out for this Congress; an agenda 
that includes regulatory relief and litigation reforms. This bill is 
consistent with this initiative for economic growth. I offer this bill 
in the hopes of furthering the process of reform.


                          ____________________