[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7608-S7610]
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.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it seems rather obvious we are not going to 
be able to complete action on the antiterrorism bill, S. 735. I have 
been notified that there are at least probably 60 or more amendments to 
a bill that we thought the President requested and that we wanted to 
cooperate with the President to try to get to him, as I indicated, 
before the Memorial Day recess.
  But, in view of the 50-some votes we had on the budget, we lost a 
day, and in view of the list of amendments, even though there may be a 
number of amendments which may not be offered, it is now very clear 
that we cannot complete action on this bill today. I think the next 
best thing is to try to get some agreement to at least limit the number 
of amendments.
  I do not know how you can have many more than 60, but I assume staff 
listening in could probably get it up to 90 in 20 minutes if they 
really tried.
  But I would just say to the President and particularly the people of 
Oklahoma, those who have suffered the tragedy, that we are serious 
about this legislation. I am not certain whether we can finish on the 
Monday we are back. I do not want to delay telecommunications. We have 
promised and promised both Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings we 
would address that very important issue. So I will have to decide what 
course of action to pursue.
  I know the House has not acted on this, so even if we did complete 
action today, we could not get the bill to the President until after 
the Memorial Day recess.
  And having discussed this with the Democratic leader, I think many of 
these amendments on both lists are just--there are some that say 
``relevant.'' We do not have any idea what it is or even what it is 
relevant to. But it is relevant as far as not being able to finish the 
bill if everybody intends to offer their amendments. One Member has 10 
amendments; another on our side has 7, or whatever.
  So I am going to ask consent that we enter into some agreement that 
we limit the number of amendments to those that have been identified, 
if that is satisfactory with the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, like the majority leader, I also would 
like to be able to accommodate the schedule to move this legislation as 
quickly as we can. We need to send a clear message, not only to the 
people of Oklahoma, but others as well, that this is important.
  As the majority leader knows, we just received a copy of the draft 
last night. As I understand it, it has not yet been printed in the 
Record. We will be taking a closer look at it.
  I think, in spite of the fact that there may be some questions 
relating to the draft itself, we would be willing to enter into an 
agreement on the list of amendments so we can work through them. There 
are a lot of amendments there that may or may not be offered, but I 
think it does protect Senators since they have not had the opportunity 
to look at it more carefully. Certainly, over the course of the next 
several days, everyone will do that. But we want to expedite our 
progress on this and, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we can 
resolve what outstanding differences remain and come to a point where 
we can vote on final passage.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope we can obtain a consent agreement and 
the managers of the bill can stay here. There may be amendments on each 
side that can be taken, indicating we are making an effort to move 
forward, even though we have only had one vote [[Page S7609]] today and 
opening statements yesterday. That, I think, will be helpful if we can 
take a few minutes on each side.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
first-degree amendments in order; that they be subject to relevant 
second degrees after a failed motion to table, with the exception of 
the amendments described only as ``relevant,'' and they be subject to 
relevant second degrees prior to any motion to table; and that the 
amendments be limited to the following time agreements where 
designated, to be equally divided in the usual form.
  I just suggest, if there is no objection, I understand they are 
working on a final draft of amendments on that side. I think we have a 
final draft. I will not read each of the amendments and the sponsors, 
but I ask unanimous consent that the amendments on the Democratic list 
be printed in the Record, as well as those on the Republican list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, but in the 
spirit of trying to help the two leaders, especially on this type of 
legislation, obviously with the rights of every Senator that are well 
known and abound and are used more than infrequently, on legislation 
like this I think it possibly would be wise to at least consider a set 
number of amendments and then seek a unanimous-consent agreement that 
the Republican leader and the Democratic leader--depending on how many 
they want--would ask to be the final authority on what amendments and 
in what order are offered on something I think as critically important 
as this piece of legislation.
  If we had not had the 50-hour time limit on the budget resolution, 
obviously we would have been here this weekend and through next 
Wednesday. I was one who had to wrestle with it.
  I guess somewhere along the line we have to appeal to all the Members 
with the idea of moving things--not in all cases--but in cases like 
this, maybe we could have some kind of appeal to have the leaders say 
how many amendments will be called up and in what order and the others 
would not be in order.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I hope we will be able 
to do that indirectly, maybe working with the managers. I think many of 
these amendments will not be called up. Many are acceptable, many are 
improvements on the bill. Some are going to be debated.
  I do not see any partisan effort on this legislation. I think it is a 
question of trying to find how do we get a good bill, how do we protect 
constitutional rights down the road. I am hopeful we can do that rather 
quickly once we get all these in a net here. I can see they are growing 
as we speak, and as fast as they can write, amendments are being added 
to the list. So I hope quickly we can stop the bleeding.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Republican leader will yield for a 
moment, reserving the right to object. I am confident the reason why 
the list is growing is because no one has seen the bill. It has not 
been printed in the Record. There have been several of us who have seen 
the bill. Our colleagues have not seen the bill. Their staffs have not 
seen the bill.
  So I am absolutely confident that a significant portion of the 
amendments that are being added are being added in the blind. They just 
want to make sure that the bill does not do what it is rumored to do in 
the press.
  I think this is one of those cases where we should not spend a whole 
lot more time trying to narrow it. If we can get a list now, great, do 
it, but I am confident that the Senator from Utah and I, over the 
period of the remainder of the day and during the recess, will be able 
to go a long way to narrowing down that list as our colleagues get a 
chance and their staffs get a chance to read this bill, which is not in 
the Record yet.
  We always spend time weighing bills around here. This is a 150-page 
bill that no one has seen other than me, and I have not read it yet. I 
got it at 6 o'clock last night. I am not being critical of anyone, but 
that is just by way of explanation.
  I do not think amendments being added are added for any other reason 
than to protect some issue Members are concerned about in this 
legislation.
  I beg your pardon, it is in the Record. I stand corrected, it is in 
the Record as of last night. Based on the last vote, 15 to 20 people 
are gone. That is the only point I make. I am sure we can work that 
through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of the amendments is as follows:
                      Amendments to Terrorism Bill


                         Republican amendments

       Kyl: Habeas corpus.
       Hatch: Technical.
       Gramm:
       (1) Sentencing
       (2) Relevant
       Abraham: Alien terrorist removal.
       Pressler: Federal building.
       Pressler: False identification of documents.
       Smith: Technical.
       Craig: Relevant.
       Craig: Relevant.
       Craig: Mandatory minimums.
       Brown: Sanctions on terrorist countries.
       Brown: Relevant.
       Specter: Secret proceedings/deportation.
       Specter: Attorney generals classification of terrorist 
     organizations.
       Specter: Wiretap.
       Specter: Habeas corpus exhaustion of remedies.
       Specter: Habeas corpus/full and fair determination.
       Specter: Habeas corpus.
       Specter: Relevant.
       Dole: Relevant.
       Dole: Relevant.
       Coverdell: I.D. cards.
       Helms: International terrorism.
       Helms: International terrorism.
       Helms: International terrorism.
       Hatch: Relevant.
       Hatch: Relevant.
       Cohen: Posse comitatus.
       Ashcroft: Citizen rights.
       Kempthouse: Relevant.
       Warner: Relevant.
                         Democratic amendments

       Biden:
       1. Habeas corpus.
       2. Habeas corpus.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Relevant.
       5. Technical.
       6. Firearms enforcement.
       7. Foreign sovereign immunity.
       8. Aliens.
       Boxer:
       1. Criminal proceedings.
       2. Para-military activities.
       Bradley: Cop killer bullets.
       Bryan:
       1. Immigration.
       2. Immigration.
       Daschle:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       Feingold:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       Feinstein:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Taggants.
       4. Distribution bomb making materials.
       Glenn: Relevant.
       Graham: Habeas corpus.
       Harkin:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Relevant.
       Heflin:
       1. Relevant.
       2. ATF study w/Shelby.
       Hollings: Funds telephony.
       Kennedy:
       1. Immigration/use secret evidence.
       2. Immigration/use secret evidence.
       3. Crime: multiple gun purchase.
       4. Crime: assist local law enforcement.
       5. Immigration/judicial review deportation.
       6. Habeas corpus.
       Kerrey: Funds for ATF/Secret Service.
       Kerry:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       Kohl: Gun free school zone.
       Lautenberg:
       1. Civilian marksmanship.
       2. Felon-gun-explosive purchasing.
       3. Relevant.
       Leahy:
       1. Crime victims.
       2. Digital telephony.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Foreign policy.
       Levin:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Relevant.
       5. Relevant.
       Lieberman: Wiretap.
       Moynihan: Ammunition regulation.
       Nunn:
       1. Military assistance.
       2. Military assistance.
       3. Lying to federal officials.
       Simon:
       1. Gun dealers.
       2. Fundraising.
       [[Page S7610]]
       
       3. Secret evidence.
       4. Relevant.
       5. Relevant.
       6. Relevant.
       7. Relevant.
       8. Relevant.
       Wellstone:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate, I think I count 89 or 90 
amendments--they went up 30 as I was getting ready here. Obviously, 
they will not all be offered. If they will, I just will not bring the 
bill back up again.
  I further ask unanimous consent that no assault weapons amendments be 
in order to the terrorism bill, and that following the disposition of 
the above-listed amendments, the Hatch substitute be agreed to. That is 
as far as we can go, I think, at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank my friend, the Democratic leader, and the manager 
of the bill. I hope maybe in the course of the next hour or two, they 
may be able to dispose of 30 or 40 of these amendments.
  Mr. BIDEN. Fifty or sixty, Mr. President, I am sure we could, if we 
work extra hard.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader if he can give 
us some indication as to the schedule for the remainder of the day and 
perhaps on Monday when we return.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes today, and on Monday, June 5, I 
suggest, I hope there will be votes, but any votes ordered not occur 
prior to 5 p.m., so some Members coming from a distance will be able to 
be here if they leave their homes early Monday morning.
  At that point--and I will advise the Democratic leader hopefully this 
afternoon--maybe we will move to the telecommunications bill or stay on 
this bill, and much will depend on whether or not the managers believe 
we can finish this bill rather quickly, say, by Tuesday afternoon. Then 
we can still go on the telecommunications bill for the remainder of the 
week.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have just concluded that it would 
be a better procedure if we would give the managers, starting today, an 
opportunity to go through these amendments. Some they may be prepared 
to take, but they have not been fully reviewed; some have not been 
fully drafted, but they have the concept. We have to see the exact 
language.
  The leadership of both sides suggest that we start that process today 
and, in the meantime, I am going to suggest that we now have a period 
for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators 
permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes each.
  Mr. HATCH. Before the leader does that, I want to say I think the 
majority leader is right. We are going to get our staffs together and 
sift through the amendments and see which ones we can agree on and 
dispose of quickly. Hopefully, we will get that done.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, ``Justice delayed is justice denied,'' so 
writes Montana State Senator Ethel Harding of Polson. On January 21, 
1974, Senator Harding's daughter, Lana, was brutally murdered. It was 
not until just 2 weeks ago, over 21 years later, that justice was 
finally carried out and Lana's murderer was executed by the State of 
Montana.
  This tragedy has haunted Senator Harding and her family for far too 
many years. The unfortunate thing is that the Harding family is not 
alone.
  And so it is encouraging to see the Senate act upon true habeas 
corpus reform as part of the overall Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 1995.
  I cannot agree with some of my colleagues who would suggest that 
habeas corpus reform should not be a part of this legislation. No one, 
including the families of the 167 innocent people killed in the 
Oklahoma City bombing, should have to wait as long as the Harding 
family to see that justice is carried out.
  Habeas corpus reform is long overdue in my opinion and the quicker we 
can bring about change in this area of the law the better. I appreciate 
the efforts of Montana's attorney general, Joe Mazurek, who along with 
11 other attorneys general from around the country wrote to the 
President in support of habeas corpus reform. This is not a partisan 
issue and should not get bogged down in partisan politics.
  In addition, I am encouraged that Senators Dole and Hatch have taken 
great pains to ensure that this legislation reaffirms our longstanding 
commitment to constitutional protections, and that any provision of the 
act which is held unconstitutional, will be severed from the act and 
will not affect the remaining provisions.
  I am also pleased to see that we have not weakened the prohibition on 
the use of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic police purposes and that 
we have not expanded the authority of roving wiretaps by removing the 
requirement of intent.
  In the wake of this great national tragedy, it is critical that we 
unite behind our law enforcement personnel. From the local, to the 
State, to the Federal authorities, law enforcement and public service 
personnel should be commended for the fine work they have done thus 
far.
  At the same time, it is important that we do not overreact out of 
fear or heightened emotions. In Montana, we continue to have situations 
in which individuals feel threatened by an imposing, uncaring, and 
overwhelming Federal Government and bureaucracy. As a result, some 
individuals have been driven to illegal acts such as a variety of 
Federal and felony charges, including gun violations, threatening and 
impersonating public officials, and tax evasion.
  Such actions cannot be condoned for we are a civilized nation of 
laws. The Montana law enforcement community has responded cautiously 
but appropriately to these situations. They have taken a 
nonconfrontational approach, responding swiftly and
 firmly to any activities that have resulted in a violation of the law. 
And they have done so without jeopardizing human lives.

  If we can help our local law enforcement community detect and prevent 
future violations of the law by providing our law enforcement community 
with the resources to effectively carry out their responsibilities, we 
should do so. This legislation is a reasoned, balanced approach in that 
regard.

                          ____________________