[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7596-S7598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a very important bill. It is 
apparent that we are trying to get a list of the amendments that people 
have so that we can hopefully get a unanimous-consent agreement on 
amendments and, when we get that, finish this bill in a very 
expeditious, good way.
  Last evening, the President of the United States sent a letter to the 
distinguished Republican leader with regard to this bill. It is a very 
interesting letter. President Clinton, in this letter, has expressed 
his interest in ``working with the Congress toward the enactment of 
this critical legislation as soon as possible''.
  I share the President's commitment to do exactly that.
  His letter outlines a number of provisions which he feels should be 
in the bill. Indeed, most of the proposals he cites are already 
addressed by the substitute, S. 735. To the extent that S. 735 does not 
address some of these issues, I believe we are already aware of 
amendments covering these issues which some of our colleagues plan to 
offer.
  Accordingly, in order to assure that we can meet the President's 
request to enact this critical legislation as soon as possible, I 
believe we should try to reach a unanimous-consent agreement on 
amendments.
  The Democrats have already made us aware of at least 17 amendments. I 
believe all of what the President has requested in his letter which is 
not addressed in S. 735 would be addressed by one or more of these 
amendments. There are only a handful of Republican amendments thus far. 
Three of them are substantive and a few others are more technical in 
nature.
  Before we take up amendments, I will say that I hope our Democratic 
colleagues will do all they can to help us to reach a unanimous-consent 
agreement on the total list so that we can wrap up this bill for today. 
I am dismayed that we need to wait to resolve these matters. 
Nevertheless, we are going to do what is right in this area. 
[[Page S7597]] 
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
President be printed in the Record at this point, so that all of our 
colleagues can see the effort the President has put forth in this 
letter.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I write to renew my call for a tough, 
     effective, and comprehensive antiterrorism bill, and I urge 
     the Congress to pass it as quickly as possible. The Executive 
     and Legislative Branches share the responsibility of ensuring 
     that adequate legal tools and resources are available to 
     protect our Nation and its people against threats to their 
     safety and well-being. The tragic bombing of the Murrah 
     Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th, the latest 
     in a disturbing trend of terrorist attacks, makes clear the 
     need to enhance the Federal Government's ability to 
     investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity.
       To that end, I have transmitted to the Congress two 
     comprehensive legislative proposals: The ``Omnibus 
     Counterterrorism Act of 1995'' and the ``Antiterrorism 
     Amendments Act of 1995.'' In addition, the Senate has under 
     consideration your bill, S. 735, the ``Comprehensive 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.'' I understand that a 
     substitute to S. 735, incorporating many of the features of 
     the two Administration proposals, will be offered in the near 
     future. I also understand that the substitute contains some 
     provisions that raise significant concerns. We must make 
     every effort to ensure that this measure responds forcefully 
     to the challenge of domestic and international terrorism. I 
     look forward to working with the Senate on the substitute and 
     to supporting its enactment, provided that the final product 
     addresses major concerns of the Administration in an 
     effective, fair, and constitutional manner. The bill should 
     include the following provisions:
       Provide clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any 
     international terrorist attack that might occur in the United 
     States, as well as provide Federal criminal jurisdiction over 
     terrorists who use the United States as the place from which 
     to plan terrorist attacks overseas.
       Provide a workable mechanism to deport alien terrorists 
     expeditiously, without risking the disclosure of national 
     security information or techniques and with adequate 
     assurance of fairness.
       Provide an assured source of funding for the 
     Administration's digital telephony initiative.
       Provide a means of preventing fundraising in the United 
     States that supports international terrorist activity 
     overseas.
       Provide access to financial and credit reports in 
     antiterrorism cases, in the same manner as banking records 
     can be obtained under the current law through appropriate 
     legal procedures.
       Make available the national security letter process, which 
     is currently used for obtaining certain categories of 
     information in terrorism investigations, to obtain records 
     critical to such investigations from hotels, motels, common 
     carriers, and storage and vehicle rental facilities.
       Approve the implementing legislation for the Plastic 
     Explosives Convention, which requires a chemical in plastic 
     explosives for identification purposes, and require the 
     inclusion of taggants--microscopic particles--in standard 
     explosive device raw materials which will permit tracing of 
     the materials post-explosion.
       Expand the authority of law enforcement to fight terrorism 
     through electronic surveillance, by expanding the list of 
     felonies that could be used as the basis for a surveillance 
     order; applying the same legal standard in national security 
     cases that is currently used in routine criminal cases for 
     obtaining permission to track telephone traffic with ``pen 
     registers'' and ``trap and trace'' devices; and authorizing 
     multiple-point wiretaps where it is impractical to specify 
     the number of the phone to be tapped (such as when a suspect 
     uses a series of cellular phones).
       Criminalize the unauthorized use of chemical weapons in 
     solid and liquid form (as they are currently criminalized for 
     use in gaseous form), and permit the military to provide 
     technical assistance when chemical or biological weapons are 
     concerned, similar to previously authorized efforts involving 
     nuclear weapons.
       Make it illegal to possess explosives knowing that they are 
     stolen; increase the penalty for anyone who transfers a 
     firearm or explosive materials, knowing that they will be 
     used to commit a crime of violence; and provide enhanced 
     penalties for terrorist attacks against all current and 
     former Federal employees, and their families, when the crime 
     is committed because of the official duties of the federal 
     employee.
       In addition, the substitute bill contains a section on 
     habeas corpus reform. This Administration is committed to any 
     reform that would assure dramatically swifter and more 
     efficient resolution of criminal cases while at the same time 
     preserving the historic right to meaningful Federal review. 
     While I do not believe that habeas corpus should be addressed 
     in the context of the counterterrorism bill, I look forward 
     to working with the Senate in the near future on a bill that 
     would accomplish this important objective.
       I want to reiterate this Administration's commitment to 
     fashioning a strong and effective response to terrorist 
     activity that preserves our civil liberties. In combating 
     terrorism, we must not sacrifice the guarantees of the Bill 
     of Rights, and we will not do so. I look forward to working 
     with the Congress toward the enactment of this critical 
     legislation as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just take a few minutes on the 
subject of habeas corpus reform, so that everybody will understand what 
the Specter-Hatch habeas corpus reform bill, which is part of this 
bill, will do to significantly reduce the delays in carrying out 
executions without unduly limiting the right of access to Federal 
courts.
  The bill would reduce the filing of repetitive habeas corpus 
petitions which delay the carrying out of death sentences to such 
extremes as to reduce the deterrent value of the death penalty.
  Under this bill, death sentences, if upheld, will be carried out, in 
most cases, within 2 years of final State court action. That will be in 
contrast to the 10 to 18 years that it is currently taking to get 
finality in these cases--usually because frivolous appeal after 
frivolous appeal is filed, all at a cost of millions and millions of 
dollars to the taxpayers of our society. Most prosecutors tell me that 
they spend a high percentage of their time just answering habeas corpus 
petitions and that it is a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, and almost 
all of them are frivolous. Now, this bill protects those that are not 
frivolous. It will protect their rights, and it will do right by the 
people filing.
  Under this bill, death sentences, if upheld, will be carried out, in 
most cases, within 2 years of final State court action--at the most, 3 
years. The bill would, first, establish a 6-month statute of 
limitations for filing a Federal habeas corpus petition in capital 
cases if the State makes counsel available in its State court habeas 
corpus. They have 1-year statute of limitations for noncapital cases.
  Second, this bill will establish time limits on Federal court 
consideration on habeas corpus petitions in capital cases if the State 
provides counsel during State habeas corpus.
  The Federal district court would have an additional 180 days to 
decide a capital habeas corpus petition. That would be 120-some days 
for a briefing and hearing, 60 days for the court to render a decision.
  Now, the district court will be able to extend the limit for 30 
additional days for good cause stated in writing. The court of appeals, 
then, must decide any appeal in a capital habeas corpus case within 120 
days of final briefings.
  Third, we allow a Federal court to overturn a State court decision 
only if it is contrary to clearly established Federal law or if it 
involves an ``unreasonable application'' of clearly established Federal 
law to the facts, or if the State court's factual determination is 
unreasonable.
  Fourth, we restrict the filing of repetitive petitions by requiring 
that any second petition be approved for filing in the district court 
by the court of appeals. A repetitive petition would only be permitted 
in two circumstances: One, if it raises the claim based on a new rule 
of constitutional law that is retroactively applicable; or, two, if it 
is based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been 
discovered through due diligence in time to present the claim in the 
first petition and that, if proven, would show by a clear and 
convincing evidence that the defendant was innocent.
  Fifth, we encourage States to provide qualified counsel to indigent 
defendants in capital cases during State court habeas corpus. The 
Constitution, of course, already requires that States appoint qualified 
counsel for trial and direct appeal. In this case, we encourage the 
States to provide qualified counsel in these capital cases during State 
court habeas corpus appeals.
  Sixth, we provide for the Federal Government to provide counsel to 
indigent petitioners and Federal habeas corpus petitions in both 
capital and noncapital cases, if a Federal judge so orders. And I 
really do not know of any case, any capital case, where the Federal 
judge will not so order. [[Page S7598]] 
  This outlines, and it is a summary of the Specter-Hatch habeas reform 
bill. I hope our colleagues will realize that this is the time to 
finally face this issue that has involved just countless frivolous 
appeals throughout the history of jurisprudence in this country.
  It is time to have some finality in these matters. We protect the 
constitutional rights and privileges of the individual defendants, but 
we say, ``The game is over.'' There will not be any more of these 
ingenious appeals that are frivolous in nature that literally will not 
meet those two requisites that I mention.
  We also say to the American taxpayers, we will not keep funding 
frivolous appeals by people on death row. We are not going to have 
another 10, 12, or 18 years, as is the Andrews case in Utah, the case 
called ``hi-fi,'' where Andrews participated with another person in 
killing a variety of people, but only after they tortured them. They 
ran pencils through their eardrums, and in one case, poured Drano down 
the throat of one of the victims. For 18 years, there was no question 
that Andrews did the murder. No question he was guilty. No question of 
the heinous nature of the crime. There was no question that the jury 
was right in rendering the verdict it did. But those appeals went on 
for 18 years, and in each of these aspects of the appeal the victims 
and their families had to go through the whole unpleasant, vicious, 
terrible experience again.
  Every one of the appeals was frivolous. For 18 years and 28 appeals. 
All the way up through the State courts, from the lower trial court, to 
the immediate appellate court, to the State supreme court. In this 
case, mainly the trial court and the State supreme court. All the way 
up through the Federal court, district court, circuit court of appeals, 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United 
States of America. It made a mockery of the law.
  I cannot blame anybody who hates the death penalty for trying to do 
everything in his or her power as a defense lawyer to try to deter 
somebody from going to the final date of execution, but the law is the 
law, and whether a person hates the death penalty or thinks it is the 
right thing, the fact is, it is the law.
  I do not have any fault with any defense lawyer who has done his or 
her best to try and free these people or at least alleviate the death 
penalty. I do not have any problem with their efforts in that regard. I 
have a problem with the law that allows that type of frivolous 
repetitive appeals. This is the time to change that law.
  By the way, this is the only thing we can do in this antiterrorism 
bill, it seems to me, that will do something about the Oklahoma City 
bombing. The only thing we can do, it seems to me, to bring swift 
justice, as the President has called for, to the perpetrators of the 
Oklahoma City bombing.
  Frankly, it is something that we have to bite the bullet on, and get 
it done. We are willing to face the music on this and to fight this 
battle out on the floor. I would like it to be one of the later aspects 
of this matter. The fact is, it is time to face it.
  When I talked to families of the victims, and the victims themselves 
just a few days ago, they begged me to make sure that we pass this bill 
and that we pass the habeas corpus reform that we have on the bill. 
Many of the State attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans 
State attorneys general, want Congress to pass this habeas corpus 
reform bill.
  I think most everybody wants Congress to pass the whole bill. The 
people out there are sick and tired of the problems.
  Frankly, I assured those who have been suffering so much from the 
Oklahoma City bombing, and those who suffer all over this country, from 
the repetitive appeals that are frivolous in nature, and the need to 
continually go to all of those hearings, I have assured them we will 
face the habeas corpus problem on this matter, and that we will pass 
the Specter-Hatch habeas corpus bill.
  We hope we can do that in this battle, and I will do everything in my 
power to see that it is done. It is no secret that there are some on 
the floor who do not like our changes in habeas corpus. It is going to 
be a controversial issue. I do believe that a majority of the Members 
of this body will vote for it.
  There are many other things that I would like to discuss about the 
bill. It is a very complex bill. It is a very detailed bill. It is a 
bill that covers almost every aspect of antiterrorism. It is one that 
is long overdue. And we are going to handle this.
  Let me digress for a minute, because my dear colleague from 
Pennsylvania is concerned about having hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge. 
I have been in constant contact with the Justice Department, with the 
FBI, and with ATF, and they are willing to do this. They are willing to 
do this. Whether they are willing or not, they know we are going to do 
this, sooner or later.
  They would prefer, as the FBI Director has requested in writing to 
me, that we defer the hearings until they have completed their 
investigation in Oklahoma City. They have also indicated that sometime 
this summer they feel that it will be all right, in any event.
  So we do intend to press forward. We are putting our investigators on 
this issue. They have been on it. We will see what we can do.
  I share my colleagues' deep concern over these incidents. I believe a 
thorough congressional review of these and related Federal law 
enforcement issues is warranted. I intend that these hearings will be 
held in the near future following Senate consideration of this 
comprehensive antiterrorist legislation, upon the completion of the 
department's investigation of the Oklahoma tragedy.
  Notwithstanding my desire to have hearings on this matter, I have 
resisted doing so right at this time, and I believe doing so at this 
time would only serve to confuse these important issues. I do not 
believe that the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents should be linked to the 
Oklahoma City incident or to the terrorist issues or hearings at this 
time.
  The Senate could, if we held hearings at this time, inappropriately--
albeit unintentionally--convey the wrong message regarding the 
culpability of those responsible for the atrocity in Oklahoma City. We 
simply must not do this. Indeed, the Senate went on record to this 
effect on May 11, 1995, by a vote of 74 to 23, when it tabled a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution which would have set a date certain for these 
hearings. But I assure my colleague from Pennsylvania, we probably will 
hold these hearings before the end of this summer and before our August 
recess. We will do the best we can. If it does take more time than 
that, we will certainly state the reasons. But that is our firm 
intention and we hope we can get that done.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for just a matter of 3 minutes so I can speak to a 
subject unrelated to what we are discussing now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________