[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7479-S7489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report S. 735 by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1199

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for Mr. Dole, for 
     himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Gramm, and 
     Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 1199.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate begins consideration of 
the Dole-Hatch Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995. This 
amendment has within it one of the most important pieces of criminal 
law in this country's history, and that is the Dole-Specter-Hatch 
habeas corpus reform bill. That is only one part of it, but that is the 
one part that will make a difference with regard to the Oklahoma City 
bombing.
  This legislation represents a landmark bipartisan effort to address 
the issue of grave national importance; that is, the prevention and 
punishment of acts of domestic and international terrorism.
  This legislation adds important tools to the Government's fight 
against terrorism and does so in a temperate manner that is protective 
of civil liberties. In short, I believe that this bill is the most 
comprehensive antiterrorism bill ever considered in the Senate.
  This legislation increases the penalties for acts of foreign and 
domestic terrorism, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, 
attacks on officials and employees of the United States, and conspiracy 
to commit terrorist acts.
  It gives the President enhanced tools to use his foreign policy 
powers to combat terrorism overseas, and it gives those of our citizens 
harmed by terrorist acts of outlaw states the right to sue their 
attackers in our own courts of law.
  Our bill provides a constitutional mechanism to the Government to 
deport aliens suspected of engaging in terrorist activity without 
divulging our national security secrets.
  It also includes a provision that constitutionally limits the ability 
of foreign terrorist organizations to raise funds within the United 
States.
  Our bill also provides measured enhancements to the authority of 
Federal law enforcement to investigate terrorist threats and acts. In 
addition to giving law enforcement the legal tools they need to do the 
job, our bill also authorizes increased resources for law enforcement 
to carry out its mission. The bill provides for $1.8 billion over 5 
years for an enhanced antiterrorism effort at both the Federal and the 
State level.
  The bill also implements the convention on the marking of plastic 
explosives. It requires that the makers of plastic explosives make the 
explosives detectable.
  Finally, the bill appropriately reforms habeas corpus, as I mentioned 
before.
  The Specter-Hatch habeas corpus bill will correct some of the 
deficiencies in criminal law that exist today. It will stop the 
frivolous appeals that have been driving people nuts throughout this 
country and subjecting victims and families of victims to unnecessary 
pain for year after year after year.
  Habeas corpus allows those convicted of brutal crimes, including 
terrorism, to delay the just imposition of punishment for years. And 
this will correct that while still preserving and protecting the 
constitutional rights of those who are accused.
  Several points, however, should be addressed. I have long opposed the 
unchecked expansion of Federal authority and will continue to do so. 
Still, the Federal Government does have a legitimate role to play in 
our national life and in law enforcement. In particular, the Federal 
Government has an obligation to protect all of our citizens from 
serious criminal threats emanating from abroad or those that involve 
the national interest. Over 140 years ago, Abraham Lincoln had this to 
say about the role of Government.
  The legitimate object of Government is--

       . . . to do for the people what needs to be done, but which 
     they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, 
     for themselves. If some men will kill, it is a common object 
     with peaceful and just men to prevent it.

  Similarly, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
assist the States in meeting those threats that none alone can 
adequately meet. The terrorist threat, whether posed by foreign 
entities or domestic interests, meets this test.
  We must, nevertheless, remember that our response to terrorism 
carries with it the grave risk of impinging on the rights of free 
speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the right 
to keep and bear arms. We cannot allow this to happen. It would be 
cruel irony if, in response to the acts of evil and misguided men 
hostile to our Government, we stifled true debate on the proper role of 
Government.
  Nor shall we exchange our precious Constitution which has protected 
us for over 200 years for false promises of ``increased security.'' For 
as Ben Franklin said:


[[Page S7480]]

       Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase 
     temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

  Mr. President, the legislation the Senate begins consideration of 
today enhances our safety without sacrificing the liberty of American 
citizens. Each of the provisions in the bill strikes a careful balance 
between necessary vigilance against a terrorist threat and the 
preservation of our cherished freedom. Several of the provisions 
deserve special mention.
  First, I would like to briefly discuss the Alien Terrorist Removal 
Act. I firmly believe it is time to give our law enforcement and courts 
the tools they need to quickly remove alien terrorists from within our 
midst without jeopardizing, for example, national security or the lives 
of law enforcement personnel.
  This provision in this bill provides the Justice Department with a 
mechanism to do this. It allows for a special deportation hearing and 
in camera, ex parte review by a special panel of Federal judges when 
the disclosure in open court of Government evidence would pose a threat 
to national security.
  It is entirely within the power of Congress to establish special 
adjudicatory proceedings and to specify the procedural rights of aliens 
involved in terrorist acts. As the Supreme Court noted over 10 years 
ago, ``control over matters of immigration is a sovereign prerogative, 
largely within the control of the Executive and the Legislature.'' 
[Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 34-35 (1982).] So long as the 
procedures established by Congress are essentially fair, they satisfy 
the requirement of Due Process.
  Moreover, we have the power as well to distinguish between classes of 
aliens and accord separate procedures to different classes. Congress 
has plenary power over immigration and naturalization. The legitimate 
distinction between aliens and citizens justifies and permits both 
separate procedures for aliens and the congressional determination that 
not all aliens should be treated alike. [Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 
(1976).]
  Mr. President, sound policy dictates that we take steps to ensure 
that we deport alien terrorists without disclosing to them and their 
partners our national security secrets. The success of our counter-
terrorism efforts depends on the effective use of classified 
information used to infiltrate foreign terrorist groups. We cannot 
afford to turn over these secrets in open court, jeopardizing both the 
future success of these programs and the lives of those who carry them 
out.
  Some raise heart-felt concerns about the precedence of this 
provision. I believe their opposition is sincere, and I respect their 
views. Yet, these special proceedings are not criminal proceedings for 
which the alien will be incarcerated. Rather, the result will simply be 
the removal of these aliens from U.S. soil--that is all.
  Americans are a fair people. Our Nation has always emphasized that 
its procedures be just and fair. And the procedures in this bill are in 
keeping with that tradition. The special court would have to determine 
that:
  First, the alien in question was an alien terrorist;
  Second, that an ordinary deportation hearing would pose a security 
risk; and
  Third, that the threat by the alien's physical presence is grave and 
immediate.
  The alien would be provided with counsel, given all information which 
would not pose a risk if disclosed, would be provided with a summary of 
the evidence, and would have the right of appeal. Still, in our effort 
to be fair, we must not provide to terrorists and to their supporters 
abroad the informational means to wreak more havoc on our society. This 
provision is an appropriate means to ensure that we do not.
  Second, this bill includes provisions making it a crime to knowingly 
provide material support to the terrorist functions of foreign groups 
designated by a presidential finding to be engaged in terrorist 
activities.
  I am sensitive to the concerns of some that this provision impinges 
on freedoms protected by the first amendment. I have worked hard to 
ensure that this provision will not violate the Constitution or place 
inappropriate restrictions on cherished first amendment freedoms. In 
fact, we have made significant changes to the original version of this 
measure proposed by the Clinton administration. For example, we have 
subjected the executive branch's designation of a group as an 
international terrorist group to judicial review. In addition, we have 
removed troubling licensing requirements that were in the original bill 
submitted by the administration.
  Nothing in the Dole-Hatch version of this provision prohibits the 
free exercise of religion or speech, or impinges on the freedom of 
association. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution provides the right 
to engage in violence against fellow citizens. Aiding and financing 
terrorist bombings is not constitutionally protected activity. 
Additionally, I have to believe that honest donors to any organization 
would want to know if their contributions were being used for such 
scurrilous purposes.
  And finally, Mr. President, I would like to address an issue which 
has inappropriately overshadowed all of the other fine provisions of 
this legislation--the inclusion of the Specter-Hatch habeas corpus 
reform in this bill. Some have stated that the inclusion of habeas 
reform in this bill is political opportunism. Mr. President, nothing 
could be further from the truth. The plain truth is, habeas corpus 
reform is entirely germane to this legislation. The President has asked 
for this reform. And the American people are demanding it.
  Let me just read this letter that is shown here on this particular 
chart. It is dated May 10, 1995. It is to the Honorable Bill Clinton, 
the President of the United States. Let me just read one paragraph.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed 
in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                     May 10, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     The President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: As a bi-partisan group of Attorneys 
     General from our respective states, we would like to express 
     our support for your efforts to bring the American people 
     together in a common expression of support for those who have 
     suffered from the tragic events in Oklahoma City. We also 
     appreciate your clear expression of support for the rule of 
     law, at a time when these acts of lawlessness have brought 
     about such human tragedy.
       In this regard, your comments on CBS' 60 Minutes program 
     regarding the need for the reform of federal habeas corpus 
     procedures is most appropriate. In our own states, we 
     continue to experience endless appeals and continuous delay. 
     We believe that such abuse of the criminal justice system 
     produces a disrespect for the law, and serves to undermine 
     deterrence.
       This is particularly true with respect to the enforcement 
     of the death penalty. As the Powell Committee Report noted:
       ``The relatively small number of executions as well as the 
     delay in cases where an execution has occurred makes clear 
     that the present system of collateral review operates to 
     frustrate the law of the 37 states.''
       This accurately describes the current status of capital 
     punishment in the states and unfortunately portends a similar 
     fortune for the recently enacted death penalty provisions of 
     Title VI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994. Motions under current Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 will 
     produce the same morass of endless delay and procedural 
     manipulation that the states have encountered under Title 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Thus, if we are to have an effective death 
     penalty on the state and federal levels, legislative action 
     is necessary.
       In this regard, expedited consideration of such legislation 
     in the context of the anti-terrorism bill is entirely 
     appropriate. Unless habeas corpus reform is enacted, capital 
     sentences for such acts of senseless violence will face 
     endless legal obstacles. This will undermine the credibility 
     of the sanctions, and the expression of our level of 
     opprobrium as a nation for acts of terrorism.
       It is our belief that S. 623, the Habeas Corpus Reform Act 
     of 1995, is the appropriate vehicle to bring about an 
     effective and enforceable death penalty with respect to both 
     state and federal levels of jurisdiction. The enactment of 
     these provisions is essential to our states, and critical to 
     Federal anti-terrorism legislation, if the maximum sanctions 
     our society has to offer will have real meaning.
       We again, offer our support for your efforts to lead the 
     nation out of the abyss of a terrible tragedy. We also offer 
     our commitment to help deliver legislation to the American 
     people that will provide an enforceable death penalty for the 
     most heinous crimes against our citizens. Thank you again for 
     your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Daniel 
           E. Lungren, Attorney General of California; Jeff 
           Sessions, Attorney General of Alabama; Ernest D. 
           Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Dan 
           Morales, Attorney General of Texas; [[Page S7481]] Gale 
           A. Norton, Attorney General of Colorado, Joseph P. 
           Mazurek; Attorney General of Montana, Don Stenberg, 
           Attorney General of Nebraska; Richard P. Ieyoub, 
           Attorney General of Louisiana; Grant Woods, Attorney 
           General of Arizona; Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of 
           Idaho; Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi.

  Mr. HATCH. Let me emphasize this one paragraph right here.
  This is from, I might add, a bipartisan group of attorneys general 
from respective States, both Democrats and Republicans. This is what 
they say in this paragraph:

       It is our belief that S. 623, the Habeas Corpus Reform Act 
     of 1995, is the appropriate vehicle to bring about an 
     effective and enforceable death penalty with respect to both 
     State and Federal levels of jurisdiction. The enactment of 
     these provisions is essential to our states, and critical to 
     Federal anti-terrorism legislation, if the maximum sanction 
     our society has to offer will have real meaning.

  This is signed by W.A. Drew Edmondson, Democrat Attorney General of 
Oklahoma; Daniel E. Lungren, Republican Attorney General of California; 
Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of Alabama, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., 
Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Dan Morales, Attorney General of 
Texas, who also is a Democrat; Gale A. Norton, Attorney General of 
Colorado; Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana; Don Stenberg, 
Attorney General of Nebraska; Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General of 
Louisiana; Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona; Alan G. Lance, 
Attorney General of Idaho; and Mike Moore, Attorney General of 
Mississippi, who is also a Democrat.
  So this is a bipartisan group of attorneys general. And I believe 
most attorneys general are in agreement that habeas corpus reform is 
absolutely essential if we are going to solve some of the problems that 
exists in the terrorist area.
  President Clinton, on ``60 Minutes'' right after the Oklahoma 
bombing, or shortly after, had this to say:

       I do believe the habeas corpus provision of the Federal law 
     which permit these appeals sometimes to be delayed seven, 
     eight, nine years should be changed. I have advocated that. . 
     . .
       I hope the Congress will pass--a reform of the Habeas 
     Corpus provisions because it should not take eight or nine 
     years and three trips to the Supreme Court to finalize 
     whether a person in fact was properly convicted or not.

  The President's instincts were right at that time and they are right 
today.
  Now, let me just say one other thing, so people understand the rule 
of law is being mocked in our society.
  This chart shows the number of inmates on death row versus the actual 
executions. These are people who have been convicted of heinous crimes, 
have been proven to be guilty of the murders involved. There were 2,976 
as of January 1995. Since 1977, almost 20 years ago, 18 years ago, 
there are only 281 who have had to suffer the punishment. In 20 years, 
only 281 have had to face the punishment that they were assessed by 
their respective juries and the States. And in almost every one of 
those cases there have been habeas appeals one right after the other.
  For those who think habeas corpus reform is not appropriate, let them 
listen to those victims of the Oklahoma bombing who called me 
yesterday, who lost their wives, their children, members of their 
family, and who said, ``Please pass your habeas corpus reform,'' 
Senator Specter's and your habeas corpus reform.
  I spoke with several family members of victims of the Oklahoma City 
bombing. They held a press conference yesterday and said this is the 
only thing we could do to prevent even further suffering by these 
people.
  I have to say, under our habeas corpus reform provisions, under those 
provisions, people's rights will be protected. There will be a full 
right of appeal all the way up the State courts, from the lowest court 
to the Supreme Court of the State. There will be a full right of appeal 
all the way up the Federal courts, from Federal court to district court 
to the Supreme Court of the United States, and their rights will be 
protected. But that is all they are going to have, unless they can show 
newly discovered evidence of innocence or unless the Supreme Court 
applies retroactively future cases to these problems.
  So, rather than exploiting the devastation of Oklahoma City, I 
believe that by including this provision in the antiterrorism 
legislation, we are protecting the families of victims.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters from 
the victims in this matter be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: On April 19, 1995, each of us lost a 
     dear member of our family in the devastating bombing that 
     occurred in downtown Oklahoma City. Our families and many 
     other families will never recover from this tragedy.
       When the blast occurred, Oklahoma City was helped by 
     experienced and skilled professionals. Our state placed the 
     care of our victims and family members in their hands and 
     they responded with all of the expertise that we expected. 
     Their jobs were performed efficiently and with tremendous 
     ability.
       Now, we find that we must place our faith in the abilities 
     of prosecutors and lawmakers and hope they can repair the 
     appeals process so that it takes not a moment longer than is 
     required by the Constitution. As ordinary citizens we are 
     unable to fully understand all of the legal implications that 
     are found within the Dole-Hatch-Specter habeas corpus 
     provision in Senate Bill 735. We believe that Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Drew Edmondson is acting in our behalf by 
     trying to change the laws so that criminals may be brought to 
     justice quickly. This measure must not be weakened.
       President Clinton made a promise to the victim's families 
     during his visit at the Oklahoma City Memorial Service. 
     Please help him keep his promise to use and see that this 
     bill is passed.
         Dan McKinney Diane Leonard; Glenn A. Seidl; Carolyn 
           Tample; Connie Williams; Nicole N. Williams; Wanda L. 
           Fincher; Alice Maroney-Denison; Cliff Davis.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       My sister Kathy Seidl and myself both work downtown at the 
     Alfred P. Murrah building. She worded for Secret Service, I 
     work for GSA. On April 19th my sisters life along with many 
     others was taken away. I'll never be able to forget the sound 
     or the terrible feeling of death that was in the air that 
     day. My first thought was to try to find my sister. When I 
     reached the 9th floor I knew there was no way she would have 
     survived the explosion, my only hope was that she stayed home 
     that day. But unfortunately she didn't. Now the only way I 
     can focus my anger, loneliness and the piece of my heart that 
     is now empty, is to try to get the Hatch/Spector bill passed. 
     Mr. Clinton promised swift justice to the persons responsible 
     for this crime. We need to have change. We need your support 
     and help to bring change.
           Sincerely,
     Clifford Davis.
                                                                    ____

                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Dear Senator: My name is Diane Leonard. My husband, Secret 
     Service Agent Donald R. Leonard, was murdered along with 167 
     innocent people in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah 
     Federal Building on April 19, 1995. The employees in this 
     building were abiding by and upholding the laws of this 
     country. We now need your support, not only for the families 
     of this tragedy, but for all American families who have lost 
     loved ones at the hands of murderers. Please lend all your 
     support to seeing that the habeas reform contained in the 
     Hatch-Specter bill is passed as expeditiously as possible.
       We have been promised justice, but we feel justice will not 
     be accomplished until the verdict of a jury is carried out.
       Please help us in this effort.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Leonard.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.

    Media Advisory From Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma

       Victims of the Murrah Building bombing who have family 
     members scheduled to be represented at this news conference 
     are Kathy Lynn Seidl, 39, investigative assistant, Secret 
     Service; Scott Williams, 24, who had made a delivery to the 
     day care center April 19; Mickey Maroney, 50, special agent, 
     Secret Service; Don Leonard, 50, special agent, Secret 
     Service; Linda McKinney, office manager, Secret Service; 
     Shelly Turner Bland, 25, Drug Enforcement Administration; and 
     Sonja Sanders, Federal Employees Credit Union.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       To Judge Mikva: My name is Dan McKinney, my wife (Linda 
     McKinney) office manager for the secret service was murdered 
     on April 19, 1995. Please accept my heartfelt gratitude for 
     you and your staffs effort in [[Page S7482]] trying to pass 
     the Dole, Hatch, Spector, Habeas Reform Bill. Criminals have 
     been allowed too much time in appealing their sentences. Lets 
     give them fair opportunity but not ten to twenty years to 
     live and waste taxpayers dollars. Attorney General Drew 
     Edmondson and his staff are working and speaking for us here 
     in Oklahoma. They are doing a wonderful job and we stand 
     behind them 100%. Please let everyone involved in this bill 
     know that it is past time to quit catering to the criminal 
     faction. We want America to know Oklahoma is tired of this 
     attitude. Thank you for your help in this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Dan McKinney.
                                                                    ____

                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Dear Senator: My name is Glenn Seidl, my wife Kathy Seidl 
     was murdered along with 167 innocent people in the bombing of 
     the Alfred P. Murrah building April 19th, 1995. The habeas 
     corpus reform bill presented by Hatch-Specter as I understand 
     will shorten the appeals process. We need change, my family 
     wants justice. Here in Oklahoma we have a man on death row. 
     This man committed several brutal murders. Roger Dale 
     Stafford has been on death row for 17 years. This is not 
     right. When the remains of the Murrah building was imploded 
     May 23rd there was some relief. When the people responsible 
     for this terrible act are found guilty and executed, our 
     families can begin a very important step of the healing 
     process.
           Thank you,
     Glenn Seidl.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Dear Senator: My name is Alice Maroney-Denison. My father, 
     Mickey B. Maroney, was murdered in the Oklahoma City bombing 
     on April 19th. On that day my life fell apart. You see my 
     father was my life and in one second he was gone. I didn't 
     get to say goodbye or I love you. I did get to see a war zone 
     in downtown Oklahoma City and a federal building that was 
     blown apart. You might have seen it on T.V. but you didn't 
     feel the glass on your feet or the pain in your heart like I 
     did.
       I'm telling you this because I need your help. I need your 
     support in passing Habeas reform. The murderers who committed 
     this crime should be executed as soon as possible, not in 15-
     20 years. My father will not get to live another 15-20 years 
     so why should the convicted?
       I cannot put all of my feelings about my father on paper, 
     but I can tell you one thing, I loved him with all of my 
     heart. Please help me by supporting this reform. Thank you.
           God Bless,
     Alice Maroney-Denison.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       My name is Nicole Williams. My wonderful husband Scott 
     Williams was murdered along with 167 other individuals in the 
     bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19, 1995.
       We as family and friends of the ones who died ask that you 
     would please pass Senate Bill 623 presented by Hatch and 
     Specter. We don't want to see the individuals who committed 
     this horrible crime to sit in prison for 15-20 years, I am 8 
     months pregnant and my husband Scott did not have a chance to 
     even see his child!
       Just as the President said, we want this to be swift and 
     quick so that we can start the healing process.
       We will be eternally grateful.
           Thank you,
     Nicole Williams.
                                                                    ____

                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Senator: My 24 year old son, Scott Williams, was murdered 
     along with 166 other innocent victims in the Oklahoma City 
     Murrah Building bombing. On behalf of my son, and the others 
     who lost their voices on April 19, 1995, because of this 
     senseless tragedy, I urge you to help enact much needed 
     reform of habeas corpus.
       Those who are brought to trial and convicted must be 
     punished to the full extent of the law. It is certainly my 
     hope that the death penalty will be carried out as soon as 
     possible in this case. My son and the other victims surely 
     deserve no less.
           Sincerely,
     Connie Williams.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Senator: I am the mother-in-law of Scott Williams, one of 
     the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing. We would ask you to 
     please pass Senate Bill 623 the Hatch and Spector bill. We 
     feel that if you are sentenced to die, it should be as swift 
     as our President said. Our loved ones did not have ten to 
     twenty years to prepare for their deaths. So please see to it 
     that the people who commit these crimes are given swift 
     justice.
           Thank you for your help,
     Carolyn Templin.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Senator: My sister, Kathy Seidl, was murdered on April 19, 
     1995 at the federal building in Oklahoma City.
       Our family is afraid that the people responsible for this 
     act will be allowed to sit in federal prison for many long 
     years before execution takes place.
       Kathy wasn't allowed to say goodbye to her family or to 
     share any more of her wonderful presence with us. If the 
     murderers are sitting in federal prison for 10-20 years they 
     will be given the right to visit with their families and to 
     say their goodbyes. How does this give justice to us?
       We would like to see that habeas corpus reform presented by 
     Hatch-Spector is adopted. We thank you and are eternally 
     grateful for your support of habeas corpus reform.
           Sincerely,
     Wanda Fincher.
                                                                    ____

                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: My name is Dan McKinney. I lost my 
     wife (Linda McKinney), my niece (Shelly (Turner) Bland) in 
     the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19, 
     1995. My wife was the office manager for the Secret Service 
     here in Oklahoma City. She and my niece have never hurt 
     anyone. I am very angry at the perpetrators of this heinous 
     crime. I'm sorry that it has taken such a tragedy to bring 
     forth the effort to try to get a change in our appeals 
     system. But I want my voice to have a vote in the strongest 
     bill we can possibly pass to keep these animal from reaching 
     old age before they have to account for their total disregard 
     for our judicial system, but most of all human life. We, the 
     survivor's of the victims of the bombing want the nation to 
     know, we are fed up. We want justice to be fair, but we want 
     it to be swift for all parties that are found guilty. Please 
     support the strongest habeas reform bill presented by 
     Specter-Hatch that we can get. No more living off the 
     taxpayers for ten to twenty years.
           Thank you for your support,
     Dan McKinney.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       My sister Kathy Seidl and myself both work downtown at the 
     Alfred P. Murrah building. She worked for Secret Service, I 
     work for GSA. On April 19th my sisters life along with many 
     others was taken away. I'll never be able to forget the sound 
     or the terrible feeling of death that was in the air that 
     day. My first thought was to try to find my sister. When I 
     reached the 9th floor I knew there was no way she would have 
     survived the explosion, my only hope was that she stayed home 
     that day. But unfortunately she didn't. Now the only way I 
     can focus my anger, loneliness and the piece of my heart that 
     is now empty, is to try to get the Hatch/Spector bill passed. 
     Mr. Clinton promised swift justice to the persons responsible 
     for this crime. We need to have change. We need your support 
     and help to bring change.
           Sincerely,
     Clifford Davis.
                                                                    ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                                     May 24, 1995.
       Dear Senator: My name is Diane Leonard. My husband, Secret 
     Service Agent Donald R. Leonard, was murdered along with 167 
     innocent people in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah 
     Federal Building on April 19, 1995. The employees in this 
     building were abiding by and upholding the laws of this 
     country. We now need your support, not only for the families 
     of this tragedy, but for all American families who have lost 
     loved ones at the hands of murderers. Please lend all your 
     support to seeing that the habeas reform contained in the 
     Hatch-Specter bill is passed as expeditiously as possible.
       We have been promised justice, but we feel justice will not 
     be accomplished until the verdict of a jury is carried out.
       Please help us in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Diane Leonard.

  Mr. HATCH. Let me just read one of them to the folks who are 
listening. This is dated May 24, yesterday:

       Dear Chairman Hatch: On April 19, 1995, each of us lost a 
     dear member of our family in the devastating bombing that 
     occurred in downtown Oklahoma City. Our families and many 
     other families will never recover from this tragedy.
       When the blast occurred, Oklahoma City was helped by 
     experienced and skilled professionals. Our state placed the 
     care of our victims and family members in their hands and 
     they responded with all of the expertise that we expected. 
     Their jobs were performed efficiently and with tremendous 
     ability.
       Now, we find that we must place our faith in the abilities 
     of prosecutors and lawmakers and hope they can repair the 
     appeals process so that it takes not a moment longer than is 
     required by the Constitution. As ordinary citizens we are 
     unable to fully understand all of the legal implications that 
     are found within the Dole-Hatch-Specter habeas corpus 
     provision in Senate Bill 735. We believe that Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Drew Edmondson is acting in our behalf by 
     trying to change the laws so that criminals may be brought to 
     justice quickly. This measure must not be weakened.
       President Clinton made a promise to the victims' families 
     during his visit at the Oklahoma City Memorial Service. 
     Please help him keep his promise to us and see that this bill 
     is passed.

  [[Page S7483]] Again, we will put all these letters into the Record. 
I wish I had time to read them all.
  By including this provision in the anti-terrorism legislation we are 
protecting the families of the victims. Comprehensive habeas corpus 
reform is the only legislation Congress can pass as part of the 
terrorism bill that will have a direct effect on the Oklahoma City 
bombing case. It is the one thing Congress can pass now to ensure that 
President Clinton's promise of ``swift'' justice is kept.
  President Clinton recognized this fact during his April 23, 1995, 
appearance on the television program 60 Minutes, when, in response to a 
question about whether those responsible would actually be executed 
without the adoption of habeas corpus reform, he said:

       I do believe the habeas corpus provisions of the federal 
     law which permit these appeals sometimes to be delayed seven, 
     eight, nine years should be changed. I have advocated that. * 
     * * I hope the Congress will pass a * * * reform of the 
     habeas corpus provisions because it should not take eight or 
     nine years and three trips to the Supreme Court to finalize 
     whether a person in fact was properly convicted or not.

  In one case in Utah, a heinous crime, where the murderers murdered 
people but before they did, tortured them, rammed pencils through their 
eardrums, poured Drano down their throats. One person survived who will 
never be the same. They were sentenced to death. In one of those cases 
it took 18 years, 28 appeals, all the way up through the State courts, 
all the way up through the Federal courts, before the sentence could be 
carried out. And in every one of those appeals the victims had to be 
there and had to go through the complete process one more time. It is 
time to get some reason into this system.
  The claim that habeas corpus reform is tangential or unrelated to 
fighting terrorism is ludicrous. We can be confident that those 
responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma will be brought to justice. The 
American people do not want to witness the spectacle of these 
terrorists abusing our judicial system, and delaying the imposition of 
a just sentence, by filing appeal after meritless appeal; frivolous 
appeal after frivolous appeal. A system which permits such a result 
does not provide justice to the victims of terrorism, and must be 
changed.
  Although most capital cases are State cases, and the State of 
Oklahoma could still prosecute this case, the habeas reform proposal in 
this bill would apply to federal death penalty cases as well. It would 
directly affect the Government's prosecution of the Oklahoma bombing 
case.
  First, it would place a one year limit for the filing of a habeas 
petition on all death row inmates--state and federal inmates.
  Second, it would limit condemned killers convicted in state and 
Federal court to one habeas corpus petition. In contrast, under current 
law, there is currently no limit to the number of petitions he or she 
may file.
  Third, it requires the Federal courts, once a petition is filed, to 
complete judicial action within a specified time period.
  Therefore, if the Federal Government prosecutes this case and the 
death penalty is sought and imposed, the execution of sentence could 
take as little as one year if our proposal passes. This stands in stark 
contrast to the 8 to 10 years of delay we are so used to under the 
current system.
  Last week, 13 state attorneys general, including
   Oklahoma Democrat Drew Edmondson, sent a bipartisan letter to 
President Clinton that I read into the Record, supporting the 
incorporation of comprehensive habeas corpus reform in the anti-
terrorism bill.

  President Clinton vowed that justice in the wake of the Oklahoma 
tragedy would be ``swift, certain, and severe.'' We must help President 
Clinton keep this promise to the families of those who were murdered in 
Oklahoma City by passing comprehensive habeas corpus reform.
  As I have stated, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995 
provides for numerous other needed improvements in the law to fight the 
scourge of terrorism, including the authorization of additional 
appropriations--nearly $1.6 billion--to law enforcement to beef up 
counter-terrorism efforts and increasing the maximum rewards permitted 
for information concerning international terrorism.
  I would note that many of the provisions in this bill enjoy broad, 
bipartisan support and, in several cases, have passed the Senate on 
previous occasions.
  In that regard I would like to pay special tribute to our former 
chairman and the current ranking minority member on the committee, 
Senator Biden. He has done an excellent job in working on these 
bipartisan provisions. And I want to pay tribute to the White House, to 
the Justice Department, and the General Counsel's office in the White 
House for working with us throughout this process. Working together, we 
have come to a broad, bipartisan consensus.
  Indeed, we have worked closely with the administration during the 
development of this legislation, and many of the provisions in this 
bill have the administration's strong support. And the administration 
deserves a great deal of credit for having helped with that. In fact, 
we have taken a lot of provisions right out of the administration's 
bill and have tried to help them in every way, tried to cooperate with 
them in every way. And I believe we have done so and have strengthened 
this bill in many respects.
  I would like to compliment the President and his Administration, 
particularly Attorney General Reno and FBI Director Freeh, and Deputy 
Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on their handling of the investigation 
of the Oklahoma City bombing and their work with us on this bill.
  The people of the United States and around the world must know that 
terrorism is an issue that transcends politics and political parties. 
Our resolve in this matter must be clear: Our response to the terrorist 
threat, and to acts of terrorism, will be certain, swift, and unified.
  Mr. President, ours is a free society. Our liberties, the openness of 
our institutions, and our freedom of movement are what make America a 
Nation we are willing to defend. These freedoms are cherished by 
virtually every American.
  But this freedom is not without its costs. Since our society is so 
open, we are vulnerable to those who would take advantage of our 
liberty to inflict terror on us. The horrific events of last month in 
Oklahoma City tragically demonstrate the price we pay for our liberty. 
Indeed, anyone who would do such an act, and call it a defense of 
liberty, mocks that word.
  We must now redouble our efforts to combat terrorism and to protect 
our citizens. A worthy first step is the enactment of these sound 
provisions to provide law enforcement with the tools to fight 
terrorism.
  In closing, what is shocking to so many of us is the apparent fact 
that those responsible for the Oklahoma atrocity are U.S. citizens. To 
think that Americans could do this to one another. Yet, these killers 
are not true Americans--not in my book. Americans are the men, women 
and children who died under a sea of concrete and steel. Americans are 
the rescue workers, the volunteers, the law enforcement officials and 
investigators who are cleaning up the chaos in Oklahoma City.
  The genuine Americans are the overwhelming majority who will forever 
reel at the senselessness and the horror of April 19, 1995. It falls on 
all Americans in heart and spirit to condemn that sort of political 
extremism and to take responsible steps to limit the prospect for its 
recurrence.
  Can the Congress pass legislation which will guarantee an end to 
domestic and international terrorism? We cannot. Nevertheless, the 
Congress has a responsibility to minimize the prospect that something 
like this could ever happen again.
  We must resolve that anarchistic radicalism, be it from the left or 
from the right, will not prevail in our freedom-loving democracy. The 
rule of law and popular government will prevail.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this 
important legislation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues who are 
still here and those who are still left standing after 20-some votes 
today, I will be mercifully short. I will take about 15 to 20 minutes 
to make this opening statement on the bill. [[Page S7484]] 
  Today, to state the obvious, the Senate turns to consideration of the 
counterterrorism legislation. Earlier this year, I, along with Senator 
Kohl and Senator Specter, introduced the President's original 
counterterrorism bill which responded to our experience with the World 
Trade Tower Center bombings 2 years ago.
  Since that time, our attention to the threat of terrorism has been 
heightened by the tragedy in Oklahoma City, which teaches that the 
threat of homegrown terrorism must be taken every bit as seriously as 
the threat of terrorism from abroad.
  Before the two tragedies occurred--that is, Oklahoma City and the 
World Trade Tower--many in America had thought ourselves immune from 
the bombs and other mass killing devices that were employed elsewhere, 
in other parts of the world.
  Americans enjoy freedoms unlike those of any other people in any 
other country on the planet. For decades, we have enjoyed those 
freedoms innocently and without fear here at home.
  We have always understood that freedom brings certain risks. The 
challenge before the Senate now, as we consider this legislation, is to 
improve our responsiveness to the risk, to the threat of terrorism, 
without losing the very freedoms we hold dear, without allowing the 
terrorists to succeed by forcing us, in order to deal with them, to 
give up the very freedoms they do not cherish but we do.
  Responding to this risk means standing against those who seek to 
destroy our democratic form of government, whether they come from the 
left or the right, from home or abroad. Incidents like Oklahoma City's 
bombing have no place in our free and democratic society, which allows 
full expression of all types of political views through legitimate 
means.
  There is simply no excuse, ever, in this country for turning to 
violence in a society where all the airwaves are open, uncensored 
newspapers exist, regular and free elections of the people's 
representatives take place, and we have a first amendment that 
guarantees the right of the people to be ignorant as well as informed; 
to be stupid as well as bright; to say outrageous things as well as 
informed things. So there is no excuse to turn to anything but the 
airwaves to deal with that issue.
  Mr. President, the Oklahoma City bombing and earlier bombing of the 
World Trade Center demonstrate clearly that the United States must 
respond seriously to those, whether foreign or domestic, who kill and 
seek to make their point through killings and mass killings of 
Americans.
  These events demand that we examine our current laws and practices to 
ensure that we are doing everything that is necessary and appropriate 
to guard against the threat.
  Mr. President, let me suggest that the overall point I wish to make 
at this juncture is that it is arguable by some that in other societies 
where there is no expression or outlet for one's frustration, anger, or 
cynicism, that they resort to physical force. If there is any country 
in the world where there is no justification to resort to physical 
force, it is this country. As I said, all you have to do is listen to 
some of the talk radio shows and some of the people that call in, and 
some of us on the floor--myself included--and you will know we even 
protect the right to be stupid and say crazy things. So there is 
certainly no need for anybody to suggest that they have to react to 
their frustration by the use of force.
  But the events in New York City and, most recently, in Oklahoma City, 
demand that we examine our current laws and practices to ensure that we 
are doing everything that is necessary to appropriately guard against 
threat. We have to take strong action to counteract terrorism, both 
foreign and domestic.
  There are steps we can take and should take, and the President has 
proposed a number of them in his bill. Of course, at the same time, we 
should not, in the heat of the moment, pass legislation that we and the 
American public will later regret. Our freedoms and our Constitution 
are simply too valuable to be put at risk in a hurried rush to respond 
to a terrible tragedy.
  Those of us working on the President's proposal over the last month 
have done so with an eye to ensuring that all of our constitutional 
protections remain fully intact.
  The President's original bill, introduced in February, laid out a 
core set of terrorist proposals. The Republican substitute bill, as the 
chairman of the committee has indicated, is built largely around these 
proposals.
  I might add, humorously, it continues to be built. We just got the 
final copy of a bill that is 160 pages long. So I am assuming what I am 
about to say is accurate. It was accurate as of a few hours ago. But I 
am told there are additional changes made in the Republican bill. The 
Republican bill is comprised primarily of, as I understood it 2 hours 
ago, measures from the terrorism bill that Senator Kohl and Specter and 
myself introduced on behalf of the President in February. There are a 
few new proposals by the President, in the wake of the Oklahoma City 
bombing, and several proposals were added by Senator Dole, plus habeas 
corpus provisions added by Senator Hatch and Senator Dole.
  We tried to reach agreement with Senator Hatch on many of the 
provisions of this bill, and I continue to believe that most all of us 
here can agree on the core terrorism provisions.
  Unfortunately, in my view, the Republican substitute does not include 
several provisions sought by the President of the United States after 
the Oklahoma City bombing, which focused on domestic terrorism. While I 
agree that a few of the provisions in the President's bill need further 
work, several of those rejected by the Republican bill are reasonable 
and limited expansions of the law, which would greatly enhance our 
ability to fight terrorism without damaging our civil liberties. But 
for reasons that will be explained, I am certain, they were not 
included by the Republicans in their bill.
  I expect that these needed provisions, which I will outline in a 
moment, will be offered as amendments to the Republican substitute, and 
I hope that all my colleagues will support their addition to the bill.
  But, first, let me outline the key terrorism proposals from the 
President's bill that are contained in the Republican substitute. These 
provisions include the following: A new offense to assure Federal 
jurisdiction over all violent acts, violent acts which are motivated by 
international terrorism. This provision will cover gaps in current 
Federal law. For example, a terrorist who commits mass murder on a 
private or State-owned property may now be subject only to State court 
jurisdiction, not to Federal jurisdiction, not to the FBI, but the 
local police.
  This new provision that the President had in his proposal, and the 
Republicans included, carries a new death penalty, complementing the 
terrorism death penalty in last year's crime bill. Parenthetically, I 
might note that the person or persons who get convicted of the World 
Trade Center bombing for having killed people cannot get the death 
penalty under Federal law. But the person or persons convicted in the 
Oklahoma City bombing will get the death penalty or can get the death 
penalty because of the crime bill we passed last year. Had we defeated 
the crime bill, there would be no death penalty for whomever is 
convicted in Oklahoma City.
  The Republican bill will also implement an international treaty to 
require a detection agent to be added to plastic explosives. That was 
in the President's bill. It will enhance the Government's ability to 
obtain consumer credit report and hotel and motel vehicle records in 
foreign intelligence investigations. It does not change the law 
governing such information as it relates to domestic investigations.
  It also gives the Government greater ability to exclude from entering 
into the United States those aliens who are involved in terrorist 
activity--a power the President does not now presently possess.
  But, unfortunately, the Republicans dropped some very important 
provisions from the President's terrorism legislation. Among those 
provisions sought by the President that were dropped by the Republican 
substitute, and which will be subject to amendments to this bill, are 
two limited changes in wiretap authority. I believe that the two 
changes make sense.
   [[Page S7485]] As my friend from Utah and others would acknowledge, 
I suspect, I have not been one who has been very ready to limit civil 
liberties. I have jealously guarded the civil liberties of folks, and I 
have interfered with efforts to change--such as the exclusionary rule--
change rules which may, in my view, limit the civil liberties and 
constitutional rights of Americans.
  But I believe, notwithstanding my 23-year record here in the Senate 
on those issues, that we can change the wiretap law, giving the police 
more authority, without violating the civil liberties of Americans. The 
changes do not affect the basic requirement built into our present law 
to protect legitimate privacy interests or--put another way--the basic 
protections, including a requirement that the Government must show 
there is probable cause. And by must show I mean they have to go to a 
judge and say, ``We want to do this, and we have probable cause to 
believe that a crime is being committed, or a crime has been committed, 
and we want you to give us authority to do a wiretap.''
  So the basic protections include a requirement that the Government 
must show there is probable cause to believe that a criminal violation 
occurred, and a current requirement that the Government must minimize 
the intrusion of the civil wiretap by turning the wire off whenever a 
conversation has nothing to do with the commission of a crime.
  I want to make it clear. The extension of wiretap authority that I 
and Senator Lieberman are going to seek, that the President wants, 
starts off with two basic requirements that are now in the Federal law: 
A, there has to be probable cause; and, B--most of my colleagues 
understandably do not realize this--under Federal law now, if a Federal 
court gives an FBI agent and the FBI authority, a warrant, to tap 
someone's phone, they must engage in minimization procedures.
  So if they are to tap the phone because they think someone is engaged 
in racketeering, prostitution, or whatever--murder, anything--and the 
person picks up that phone and calls his daughter at school and starts 
talking about her latest lacrosse game, they must turn off the wiretap. 
They are not allowed to keep the wiretap on 24 hours a day. We do not 
change that. So the protections built in stay built in.
  One of the changes, though, sought by the President but not included 
by my friend from Utah in his bill, is to allow emergency wiretaps 
which are now available in organized crime cases to be obtained for 
domestic terrorism offenses. Quite simply, if we can use this tool of 
emergency wiretaps against the Mafia, I do not understand why we ought 
not be able to use it against domestic terrorists. But for some reason, 
my friends on the Republican side have not included that in this bill. 
I hope it is an oversight, but I do not think it is. We will have an 
attempt to correct that.
  The Republican substitute also does not include a provision on what 
is called a multipoint, or roving, wiretap. Let me take a moment to 
explain what these multipoint wiretaps are.
  Right now, most wiretap orders identify both the person whom we want 
to listen in on, and a telephone number from which we expect that 
person to call. That is the line that they are allowed to go tap. 
Current law permits the Government to get a multipoint wiretap, 
allowing the Government to tap any line it sees the subject using when 
the Government can prove that the subject under surveillance is 
changing phones with the intent to thwart surveillance.
  So the way it goes now is, let us say the FBI gets a wiretap on John 
Doe's home, and John Doe decides that phone may be tapped. So he does 
not use that phone. He always goes to the same phone booth on the 
corner. And he often makes calls from his mother's home. Well, if they 
can show a judge that John Doe is using those, and perhaps other phones 
with the intent to evade possible detection of what he says on his 
phone, they can get a multipoint tap. They can tap all three of those 
phones. But in order to do so, they have to prove that he is doing that 
with an intent to avoid, to thwart the surveillance.
  Because of the proliferation of mobile telephones, the President 
wants to eliminate the intent requirement to allow the Government to 
obtain multipoint wiretaps where the subject may not know he is under 
surveillance but is, nonetheless, changing phones rapidly with the 
effect, if not the intent, of thwarting the surveillance. For some 
reason, my Republican friends do not include that in this bill. The 
President wants it. The FBI wants it. I think it makes sense. We are 
going to try to put it back in.
  I have long shared the concern that wiretaps are an intrusive law 
enforcement tool. When Congress first gave the FBI authority to use 
wiretaps in criminal investigations, we placed special protections 
directly in the statute precisely to protect legitimate privacy 
interests. I will detail how these protections work in practice when we 
get to the amendment on this subject.
  In my view, the changes sought by the President are limited and 
reasonable, and we should add those provisions back to the bill, the 
provisions deleted by the Republican proposal.
  A second area the President has asked the Congress to address is that 
of adding so-called taggants to explosives. What are taggants? Taggants 
are microscopic particles that are added to the explosive during the 
manufacturing process. Those particles survive the explosion when that 
explosive is detonated, and can later be used, if necessary, to trace 
where and when the explosive materials were purchased.
  That just seems to me to be a pretty logical thing to do. It does not 
affect the ability of the explosive to function. But, if it does 
function, some of these are like little pieces of microscopic plastic. 
The investigators can go in with, in effect, a magnet, pick up these 
particles from the dust of the explosion, identify through those 
particles where that explosive was purchased, when it was purchased, 
and when it was made. That gives them an investigative tool then to go 
trace, just like they trace a bullet in a gun. They shoot a gun; the 
bullet is in the wall. The investigator takes the bullet out of the 
wall and tries to trace the manufacturer of the gun, to trace the 
purchaser, to trace the owner, and so forth. This is the same 
principle. But for some reason, folks do not like that idea. The 
President seeks a study to identify the most effective and cost-
efficient ways to tag explosives during the manufacturing process.
  Then it gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to 
promulgate regulations requiring chemical manufacturers and other 
manufacturers to use taggants and to make the violation of that 
regulation, when they are promulgated, a violation of the law, a crime. 
The President's proposal also requires a study of whether fertilizers 
and other readily available materials can be used to build bombs that 
can be rendered inert.
  I was at a conference with General Rose, a British general, who is in 
charge of the U.N. military force in Sarajevo, in Bosnia. We were 
meeting on the issue of Bosnia when the god-awful news came about 
Oklahoma City.
  We immediately cut off our meeting, and we repaired to the 
television. As General Rose and I and others sat there watching the 
horror on the screen, General Rose, a British general, turned to me and 
said something that startled me. Just looking at the building, he said, 
``That's a fertilizer bomb.'' And I said, ``I beg your pardon?'' He 
said, ``That bomb, that building was blown up by fertilizer.''
  And I thought, how in the Lord's name could he know that? And about 3 
hours later on the television, investigators came on and said that it 
was a fertilizer bomb that caused this damage. So I asked him how did 
he know that? He said he could tell by the jagged way in which the 
building was ripped apart from his experience in Northern Ireland. And 
he said, you know what we did in England with this because the IRA was 
using these kinds of bombs? We reduced the amount of nitrogen in 
fertilizer and we added a requirement to fertilizer that an inert 
material--that is, something that will not affect the effectiveness of 
the fertilizer--an inert material can be added to fertilizer to make it 
impossible, or diminish the possibility that it can be used to blow up 
something.
  Now, it seems to me that makes sense. Unless someone can prove to me 
that by adding this inert subject to the production of fertilizer, you 
are going to render the fertilizer useless for its 
[[Page S7486]] purpose on the field, it seems to me we should do that.
  The Republican substitute includes a study of taggants and whether or 
not fertilizer can be made inert, but it does not grant authority for 
regulations requiring taggants, and this is an issue that has already 
been the subject of significant study.
  The Republicans rejected the President's request to move from the 
theoretical to the real and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to 
require the inclusion of taggants in explosives. My question is why? 
Why? Why will they not include that?
  Well, Senator Feinstein and I will have an amendment to reinstate the 
President's language in his terrorism bill. In my view, it is time to 
act and require the ATF, the agency with expertise and jurisdiction 
over explosives, to gather the best information and promulgate the 
necessary regulations.
  Finally, the Republican substitute does not include a proposal to 
allow the use of the military to assist in investigations of biological 
and chemical weapons. The President proposed a narrow exception to what 
is called the Posse Comitatus Act, a narrow exemption to permit law 
enforcement to use the unique expertise of the Defense Department in 
combating biological and chemical weapons in terrorism similar to what 
the law now permits with regard to nuclear material.
  Right now, we can use the military in a domestic situation where 
nuclear material is involved, an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. 
The Posse Comitatus Act, for people listening, is a fancy name, but it 
merely says we do not want the military having arrest power in the 
United States of America. The military is to fight enemies foreign, not 
domestic. And that is a good thing. We all agree with that. We are one 
of the countries in the world that does not have the military dictating 
the day-to-day operations of the country. I do not want to change that. 
But the military has the expertise on nuclear weapons, the military has 
the expertise on biological weapons and the expertise on chemical 
weapons, and it seems to me we should provide a similar exception for 
them to be able to be involved in domestic investigation where it 
affects biological agents and where it affects chemical agents, just as 
we do now allow them to be involved where it involves nuclear material.
  Negotiations among interested parties on the Armed Services and the 
Judiciary Committees have occurred over the last few days, and we are 
nearing a bipartisan agreement on this, I hope. If, however, an 
agreement is not reached, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Nunn, and I plan to offer a proposal to permit the use of the military 
in these limited circumstances of biological weapons and chemical 
weapons. We must be in a position to respond immediately should we 
ever, God forbid, have an event like that which occurred in the Tokyo 
subway. And to be ready to respond, we should avoid wasted duplication 
of setting up a new bureaucracy to be able to handle chemical and 
biological weapons, and we certainly should avoid any more delay. So we 
will have an amendment, if an agreement is not reached, to provide an 
additional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act as it relates to 
chemical agents and biological agents.
  Now, habeas corpus. The distinguished Senator from Utah and I have 
been debating habeas corpus for as long as we have been here, and in 
his opening statement--I may be mistaken, but I would estimate 40 
percent of his statement related to habeas corpus, or a large portion 
that I heard. And so he includes habeas corpus in this proposal.
  Now, the President asked that this be kept, to use the parlance of 
the Senate, a clean bill; that we deal with terrorism.
  Well, that is not going to happen. And although habeas corpus as 
explained by Senator Hatch has little to do with fighting terrorism, we 
are going to have to debate it anyway.
  Now, the Republican provision to reform habeas corpus procedures 
would require Federal courts to defer to State court decisions even 
when the State court has made an incorrect decision on habeas corpus. 
This provision is what everyone around here knows as the full and fair 
rule. The need for habeas corpus reform is clear. All of us want to end 
the delay and abuse in habeas corpus and all of us have supported 
provisions in the past that would limit a prisoner's right to appeal, 
would allow a very narrow window in which a habeas corpus petition 
could be filed, and would place strict limits on when that petition had 
to be filed.
  However, the Republican proposal goes much further. The standard 
proposed in the Republican substitute would direct a Federal court to 
defer to a State court decision as long as it is not unreasonable. In 
other words, if reasonable minds could disagree, the State court 
decision would stand in Federal court even if it is incorrect.
  Now, this is a dressed up version of what is known around here as the 
full and fair rule. Reasonableness is a highly deferential standard, 
one never before used in habeas corpus. And current law permits Federal 
courts to make a merit-based decision and to correct harmful State 
court errors.
  I believe we must reform habeas corpus, and I believe we can reform 
habeas corpus to adopt limits on the number of petitions and the time 
limits on the petitions such as those contained in the Republican 
substitute, but without stopping Federal courts from correcting serious 
State court errors in interpreting the United States Constitution.
  In addition, the Republican substitute changes current law which 
mandates appointment of a lawyer in Federal habeas corpus cases to make 
such appointments discretionary, not mandatory. I support limiting a 
prisoner's right to petition. I support limiting prisoners to one 
habeas corpus petition and giving them a very short period within which 
it must be filed, but I cannot fathom why we would deny that same 
petitioner a lawyer at the same time. Such a step serves neither 
efficiency nor justice.
  Now, I noted that the habeas corpus provision in the Republican bill 
is not directly related to terrorism in that it applies primarily to 
prisoners who are prosecuted in State courts.
  It is particularly inappropriate, in my view, to work such a 
devastating change in the law on a bill which is designed for a very 
narrow purpose, for which the Senate is working to move quickly.
  Now, when we get to the debate on habeas corpus, we will have what 
has become known around here as ``dueling charts.'' I will show that 
the Biden habeas corpus provision would not allow those outrageous 
examples that the Senator uses where a petitioner sat on death row 2, 
5, 10, 12, 18 years after having committed a heinous crime and avoiding 
the death penalty for that period as a consequence of filing petitions. 
We want to allow only one bite out of the apple.
  But I want to make a point. My friend from Utah made an impassioned 
statement tonight about how it would be horrible if we find and convict 
the murderer, the man or woman, or men or women, who murdered those 
people in Oklahoma and that person was able to avoid execution by 
filing repetitive petitions.
  Well, his proposal has nothing to do with that. So I will have an 
amendment that says: Limit their habeas corpus changes to Federal court 
matters.
  For example, all the horror stories the Senator pointed out tonight, 
none of them have to do with somebody who has been tried in Federal 
court. If you have been tried in a Federal court--which this bill says, 
by the way, the terrorism bill says, the only purpose of it is to say 
you do these bad things, you go to a Federal court, you go to a Federal 
judge, you have the Federal FBI investigate you, you go to a Federal 
prison, you have a Federal executioner. That is the only reason for the 
bill. That is why we are doing it.
  So if the Senator is as concerned as he appears to be about these 
exorbitant delays, let us apply it to Federal court.
  Now, the reason I am going to offer that amendment is not that I 
think his idea as to how he wants to limit it in Federal court makes 
much sense, but just to prove that this is a sham. This has nothing to 
do with it.
  I will have a chart tomorrow, or whenever we get to this, showing all 
the prisoners in Federal court sitting on death row who are filing 
Federal habeas petitions. What he is talking about is a need to remedy 
the State court problem. And I am willing to do that; I have been 
trying to do it for 10 years, but not on this bill. [[Page S7487]] 
  Why are we getting into this debate on this bill? But I will leave 
that for another moment, another day, another hour to debate it, 
because we have debated it before.
  Finally, the Republican substitute contains two very controversial 
provisions from the administration's proposal that I believe are 
troubling. The first is that it includes a provision that I must 
acknowledge the President's included, a provision to create new 
deportation procedures for aliens in the United States who are alleged 
to be terrorists.
  In the administration's bill, the Government could, in some 
circumstances, use secret information, not disclosed to the defendant, 
not disclosed to the defendant's lawyers, in order to make a case.
  We have never had such a procedure in history, to the best of my 
knowledge, in America, where someone can bring a charge against an 
individual, go into a Federal court, have the prosecutor meet alone 
with the judge and say:
  ``Judge, these are all the horrible things that the defendant did. 
We're not going to tell the defendant what evidence there is that he 
did these horrible things. We're not going to let the defendant know 
what that evidence is. We're not going to let the defendant's lawyer 
know what it is. We're not going to let the defendant's lawyer answer 
these questions. You and me judge''--me, the prosecutor; you, the 
judge--``let's deport him in a secret hearing, using secret evidence. 
Let's walk out of this courtroom, out of your chambers, walk out and 
say, `OK, Smedlap, you're deported. We find you're a terrorist. You're 
out of here.'"
  And Smedlap looks and says, ``Hey, tell me who said I was a 
terrorist. How do you know that?'' We say, ``Oh, no, we can't tell you. 
We know you did it, and we can't tell you how we know.''
  Now I think that is about as un-American as it gets.
  Now what we will hear is--and I think the President is dead wrong on 
this--but what we will hear is, ``Well, look, these folks are not 
American citizens. They are not entitled to the same privileges as 
American citizens in a courtroom.''
  Well, that is technically true. But, my lord, I do not want to be 
part of anything that establishes that kind of Star Chamber proceeding. 
Technically, they may be right; philosophically, it is dead wrong.
  But it is interesting, my Republican friends do not include taggants. 
They do not include additional wiretaps. But they include this. I mean, 
who, as my little daughter used to say, ``Go fish.'' How can you figure 
that one out? I cannot, anyway.
  Our judicial system generally requires that a defendant be given 
evidence that is to be used against him so that he can prepare a 
defense. Unseen, unheard evidence simply cannot be defended against and 
it creates the possibility of erroneous decisions.
  The Republican substitute, unlike the prior version of the Republican 
bill, moves back toward allowing what the President wrongheadedly put 
in his bill, in my view.
  The bill also includes a radically revised version of an 
administration proposal to bar fundraising within the United States for 
organizations which the Secretary of State designates as terrorists. 
The President's proposal guarded against first amendment concerns by 
allowing persons to send funds to designated organizations if it could 
be shown that the funds were going to a legitimate purpose, for 
humanitarian effort or for political advocacy only.
  For example, the substitute bill revises this proposal. First, it 
changes the Presidential determination to one made by the Secretary of 
State and then subjects the determination to searching judicial review. 
While this addresses some of the first amendment concerns in the 
administration's proposal, it is also problematic because Presidential 
designations of this sort are not usually litigated in Federal court.
  Second, the substitute eliminates any opportunity for persons to make 
donations for proper purposes, in my view increasing the first 
amendment concerns on that aspect of the bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say that I would have preferred 
to have come to this floor on a bill that was wholly bipartisan without 
controversial and irrelevant provisions, but the majority has not 
chosen to proceed that way. I would also, frankly, have preferred to 
have seen the bill we are considering in advance of the day we are 
considering the bill on the floor. But, in fairness to my Republican 
friends, they have been working hard to put it together to try to meet 
the deadline to get it in before the recess. But, nonetheless, it puts 
us in a difficult position.
  Having received a final version of the bill at only about 6:30 
tonight, I have not been able to review it carefully to see whether any 
of my concerns have already been addressed in the bill--maybe some of 
the things I have said now have been addressed by this new version--or 
whether or not additional concerns have been raised by the new bill.
  It is my hope and belief that, with certain changes, the substitute 
offered today by my Republican friends can become a true pro-law-
enforcement, pro-civil-liberties, counter-terrorism, bipartisan bill.
 It is my hope and belief that all Senators will listen to the director 
of the FBI, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, and the President, and not to groups who believe 
violence, not voting, is the means to change the system--not that 
anyone is listening to anyone who is advocating violence, but those who 
do not think we should expand the ability of law enforcement to look 
more closely at those groups who believe violence and not voting is the 
means to change the system.

  All Federal law enforcement is part of a team of brave men and women 
who protect the lives of all Americans from terrorist attacks. Let us 
stand with law enforcement as we consider this bill, and give them the 
tools that they badly need. Even as we protect our constitutional 
freedoms, we can make this legislation a truly effective tool in 
fighting terrorism, the threat that comes from distant shores as well 
as those that come from the American heartland. We have a duty to 
protect law-abiding Americans and that is what this bill must do.
  In conclusion, I believe we can enter into a time agreement on most 
of the amendments that we will have and hopefully we can move quickly, 
after the recess, to finish and to complete this bill. Because, as I 
understand the majority leader, he is looking for a couple of 
amendments to be brought up tomorrow--whether that means one, two or 
five, I do not know--but several amendments tomorrow, which we are 
ready to do. We will give time agreements on those amendments and then 
we will move back to the bill when we come back.
  Again, I thank my Republican colleague, the chairman of the 
committee, for the areas in which we have cooperated. I look forward to 
vigorous and substantive debate on those areas where we do not agree. 
But ultimately we will produce a bill.
  I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking member on 
the committee. I have enjoyed his remarks this evening. Literally some 
of his concerns we have addressed in the bill, in the substitute that 
has been filed. We cannot address all of his concerns in the way he 
would like them to be addressed because of differences. But some have 
been, and I think he will be pleased with those.
  We will continue to work with him to try to perfect this bill in the 
interests of everybody, including the administration.
  As I understand it, Senator Thurmond would like to make a short 
statement, and also Senator DeWine. I do not know if there is anybody 
else who does, but as soon as the last few statements are made, we will 
shut the Senate down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
substitute amendment to S. 735, offered by the able chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, Senator Hatch, and others who joined 
on this matter. As an original cosponsor of this legislation and the 
substitute amendment, I believe it builds upon a solid foundation to 
assist law enforcement in their fight against 
terrorism. [[Page S7488]] 
  We must send a clear message that the people of America will not 
tolerate cowardly acts of terrorism, in any fashion--whether their 
source is international or domestic. It is important that the Congress 
work closely with Federal law enforcement to provide the necessary 
tools and authority to prevent terrorism. I am ever mindful that an 
appropriate balance between individual rights guaranteed in the 
Constitution and the needs of law enforcement must be achieved as we 
meet our responsibility. The American people appropriately look to 
their Government to maintain a peaceable society but do not want law 
enforcement to stray into the private lives of law-abiding citizens. 
The balance is to provide reasonable authority to law enforcement to 
investigate and prevent terrorism while respecting the rights of the 
American people to form groups, gather, and engage in dialog even when 
that dialog involves harsh antigovernment rhetoric. The recent bombing 
in Oklahoma City compels us to address this issue.
  Mr. President, it is my belief that this legislation will enhance law 
enforcement capabilities to combat terrorism while respecting our 
cherished rights under the Constitution. This bill contains provisions 
to increase penalties for conspiracies involving explosives and the 
unauthorized use of explosives. Additionally, our legislation will 
assist law enforcement in fighting international terrorism, including 
language to prohibit U.S. aid to countries that provide military 
equipment to terrorist nations. The United States must send a strong 
signal to our allies and adversaries that America's policy is one of 
zero tolerance for aiding terrorists.
  Also, I am pleased that this legislation contains the much needed 
language on alien terrorist removal. These provisions create a new 
``terrorism court'' made up of sitting district court judges appointed 
by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This specialty court would 
have the authority to hear deportation cases involving alien terrorists 
and would ensure, through the use of a limited ex parte procedure, that 
the United States can expeditiously deport alien terrorists without 
disclosing national security secrets to them and their criminal 
associates.
  There are other provisions to provide anti-terrorism assistance to 
Federal law enforcement agencies. Further, one of the most important 
sections of this legislation, which I will now address, is designed to 
curb the abuse of habeas corpus appeals.
  Mr. President, for years, as both chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, I have called for reform of habeas corpus 
appeals. The habeas appellate process has become little more than a 
stalling tactic used by death row inmates to avoid punishment for their 
crimes. I have authored and joined as an original cosponsor of 
legislation designed to curb the abuse of habeas corpus and to limit 
the intrusion of Federal courts in State
 court convictions.

  Unfortunately, the present system of habeas corpus review has become 
a game of endless litigation where the question is no longer whether 
the defendant is innocent or guilty of murder, but whether a prisoner 
can persuade a Federal court to find some kind of technical error to 
unduly delay justice. As it stands, the habeas process provides the 
death row inmate with almost inexhaustible opportunities to avoid 
justice. This is simply wrong.
  In my home State of South Carolina, there are over 60 prisoners on 
death row. I am informed that one has been on death row for 18 years. 
Two others were sentenced to death in 1980 for a murder they committed 
in 1977. These two men, half brothers went into a service station in 
Red Bank, S.C. and murdered Ralph Studemeyer as his son helplessly 
watched. One man stabbed Mr. Studemeyer and the other shot him. It was 
a brutal murder and although convicted and sentenced to death, these 
two murderers have been on death row for 15 years and continue to sit 
awaiting execution.
  Mr. President, without adequate habeas reform , the murdering coward 
who exploded the bomb in Oklahoma City could avoid justice for many 
years as many are now doing who have been sentenced to death. President 
Clinton has called for habeas reform, and I urge my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to join us to ensure that justice becomes a 
certainty and not a mere probability.
  The habeas reform provisions in this legislation will significantly 
reduce the delays in carrying out executions without unduly limiting 
the right of access to the Federal courts. This language will 
effectively reduce the filing of repetitive habeas corpus petitions 
which delays justice and undermines the deterrent value of the death 
penalty. Under our proposal, if adopted, death sentences will be 
carried out in most cases within 2 years of final State court action. 
This is in stark contrast to death sentences carried out in 1993 which, 
on average, were carried out over 9 years after the most recent 
sentencing date.
  Mr. President, the current habeas system has robbed the State 
criminal justice system of any sense of finality and prolongs the pain 
and agony faced by the families of murder victims. Or habeas reform 
proposal is badly needed to restore public confidence and ensure 
accountability to America's criminal justice system.
  Mr. President, while there is nothing we can do to alter the tragic 
bombing in Oklahoma City, the Congress should now adopt legislation to 
bolster our efforts to prevent heinous and cowardly acts of terrorism. 
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution clearly spells out the highest 
ideals of our system of government--one of which is to ensure domestic 
tranquility. The American people have a right to be safe in their homes 
and communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to provide valuable 
assistance to our Nation's law enforcement in their dedicated efforts 
to uphold law and order. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening in very strong support 
of the bill that we are considering tonight, the Comprehensive 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.
  This is a bill that truly will help the United States fight 
terrorism, while at the same time preserving basic constitutional 
rights and civil liberties.
  Let me begin tonight by congratulating Senator Dole, the majority 
leader, Senator Hatch, Senator Thurmond, who have worked so very, very 
hard on this bill. They have crafted a bill that will truly make a 
difference. They have crafted a bill that will help the United States 
as a country fight back, against terrorism.
  This bill being brought to the floor tonight is in immediate response 
to the horror of Oklahoma City. But it is also this response to the 
realization that we all have, about what a very, very dangerous world 
we live in today. Some thought that with the ending of the cold war we 
would be living in a safer world. But we all know today that is simply 
not true. Whether the terrorism comes from our own shores or is 
international terrorism, it is still horrible and we still must fight 
back.
  I would like to talk briefly tonight about one particular aspect of 
this bill. That has to do with the provisions in this bill that give 
local law enforcement the resources and the tools that they need to 
fight back. I am specifically talking about the provisions in the bill 
that give local law enforcement the resources to provide for 21st 
century technology.
  I have talked, Mr. President, on this floor during the last several 
weeks on 6 or 7 different occasions about how very, very important it 
is, that local law enforcement throughout the country, where 95 percent 
of all criminal prosecution occurs, where 95 percent of all arrests 
occur, where 95 percent of all investigations occur, that the resources 
be driven down to those local communities and those local law 
enforcement officers so that they have the technology, the DNA, the 
automated fingerprints, the ballistics, the criminal record, so that 
they have those tools so they can fight back.
  This bill takes a major provision of my crime bill--the crime bill, 
by the way, that is cosponsored by Senator Hatch as well as Senator 
Thurmond, Senator Ashcroft--this bill takes a major provision of that 
bill and inserts it in this bill and provides $500 million that will go 
directly to local law enforcement to help them develop the data bases 
that they need, and that the FBI knows they need.
  This will, Mr. President, make a difference. It will help the 
government solve crime. It will help to save lives. [[Page S7489]] It 
will make a difference in fighting terrorism, and it will make a 
difference in fighting all kinds of crime.
  Last year's crime bill, Mr. President, had a major provision that 
provided that very significant amount of money to the FBI to develop 
the national central data base--DNA, fingerprints, identification of 
individuals, ballistics.
  When I traveled Ohio the last few months and talked to local law 
enforcement officers, one of things that they told me was that is all 
well and good, but if we cannot access that information, if we cannot 
get it, if we do not have the tools to bring it to law enforcement, it 
will not do any good.
  Several months ago, I visited the FBI and spent a day with them and 
spent a day with their experts in all of these different high technical 
fields. That, I found, is what local law enforcement had told me the 
FBI confirmed. That is, their fear is that local law enforcement will 
not have the resources so that we all can develop this national data 
base.
  This is a unique role for the Federal Government. When we talk, Mr. 
President, about anticrime bills, antiterrorism bills, we 
always should first focus on what can only the Federal Government do.
  I submit, Mr. President, that the evidence is abundantly clear that 
it is only the Federal Government that can establish this national base 
throughout the country. Now, why is that? Let us pretend that we are 
the sheriffs in Lawrence county, Ohio, or the chief of police in 
Ironton.
  Our ability to use these tools, to use these data bases, depends on 
three things.
  Number one, we have to have the ability or the resources there, and 
we have to put the information in. We have to do a good job.
  Number two, the FBI, of course, has to build up a national base, so 
we can access from a national point of view.
  But the third thing that we sometimes miss is that my ability --if I 
am the chief of police or a police officer in Ironton--to get 
information is dependent not only on the local community, local police, 
local sheriff and local FBI, but also on tens of thousands of 
jurisdictions across the country, because we live in a very, very 
mobile society. People move around; criminals move around.
  So what the Federal Government does and what we are doing in this 
bill--and again, I congratulate my colleague from Utah and Senator Dole 
the majority leader, for having the wisdom to listen to local law 
enforcement, to listen to the FBI when they say this is what we need, 
and to set aside a provision of this bill and to take that $500 million 
and say it will go down to local law enforcement so that we can, as a 
country, develop this national data base. It will, in fact, Mr. 
President, make a very substantial difference.
  What are we talking about? What practical applicability does all of 
this have? You know, I have said many times, Mr. President, that we 
debate in this Congress--in the Senate and in the House --on the 
national news media a lot of things regarding crime that really do not 
make a lot of difference. But giving local police officers the tools 
that they need makes a difference. It matters. It is important. This is 
what the provisions of this bill truly do.
  What is the practical application? We have seen it on TV a lot in the 
last few in regard to DNA. One of the things that is sometimes missed 
is the fact that DNA can be used, and is used, every single day in this 
country to help clear from investigations innocent people, so that 
someone does not stay the focus of a criminal investigation. DNA can be 
used for that.
  But the situation we have in this country today is that law 
enforcement officers throughout the country do not, as a rule, really 
have access to good DNA technology. The laboratories are not there. If 
the laboratories are there and they have access, there is waiting time. 
They have to pick only their top cases, only the highest priority 
cases.
  This bill will help solve that problem by establishing the resources 
so we can have DNA laboratories and experts who can come into court and 
testify, no matter where that crime is committed.
  How else does it help? Think how important it is if you are a police 
officer or a sheriff's deputy, and at 3 o'clock in the morning you are 
following a car and, for some reason, you make the determination you 
need to pull that car over, and you need to pull that car over on a 
dark road, away from civilization, away from people, and you do that. 
Is it not important that you know that when you run that license plate, 
that the information you get back on the ownership of that car is 
accurate? Is that not important? Is it not important, or would it not 
be important if you are a police officer and you had just arrested 
someone and you wanted to determine really who that person was, and you 
did not believe them when they told you who they were, if you could 
take that person back to your police cruiser and take his or her hand 
and put it up against a screen and have those prints electronically 
transmitted to a central data base, and within a matter of seconds know 
who that person really is? We have that technology today. It is not 
widespread because of the cost. But we have the ability to do that.
  Would it not be important for our children, for possible victims of 
sexual abuse, to be able to start as a country what some States are 
just now beginning to do--that is, to develop a national data base, DNA 
data base of sex offenders? The sad truth is, Mr. President, that sex 
offenders have just about the highest repeat offender rate of any group 
of criminals. I think check forgers and those who pass bad checks 
probably have about the same number of recidivism. But it is a little 
different when we are dealing with a sex offender.
  I think it is important that every sex offender who goes into prison 
gets their blood taken. It is constitutional. We can do it. We just 
have not put the resources behind it. We can take their blood and 
develop a national DNA data base of sex offenders. So when that person 
comes out--as most of them do--and if that person commits another 
offense--as many do, tragically--then we have that data base, and we 
have the ability to take any bodily fluid from the crime scene, 
anything, and match that up and make that DNA comparison. We will solve 
crimes, save lives, and we will convict sex offenders.
  Mr. President, I could go on and on with example after example. This 
money is important. We talk a lot about what matters in crime and what 
does not matter. The money provided in this bill, the provision that 
Senator Hatch and Senator Dole have put in, when they have listened to 
local law enforcement and to the FBI--these provisions are an integral 
part of this bill, a very important part of the bill. I congratulate 
them and thank them for putting it in the bill because it will truly 
make a difference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio for an excellent statement and also the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina. As usual, Senator Thurmond really covers these matters 
as well as they can be covered.

                          ____________________