[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7656-S7658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Hatch Amendment No. 1199, in the nature of a substitute.
Amendment No. 1199
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues that we hope to
complete action on this bill very quickly, and I am asking my
colleagues on each side--I think there are 67 amendments on the
Democratic side, 30-some on the Republican side--to see if we cannot
limit the number of amendments. We will also file cloture today and try
to get consent to vote on that cloture motion tomorrow in an effort to
expedite this bill.
Immediately after the tragic events in Oklahoma City, I wrote to
President Clinton expressing my hope that we could put aside
partisanship and develop an antiterrorism plan all Americans could
support. Just as partisan [[Page S7657]] politics stopped at the
water's edge during World War II, it has always been my view that
partisan politics should stop at ``evil's edge'' in our war against
terrorism.
During the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to discuss
this issue directly with the President. Our staffs have shared ideas.
We have introduced our own legislative plans. And Senator Hatch,
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has had several important
hearings. The proposal now before the Senate is a culmination of all
these efforts: Democrats, Republicans, the President, staff input. This
is a bipartisan plan. It reflects many Republican ideas, and it
contains many of the initiatives endorsed and sought by President
Clinton himself--prohibitions on fundraising for foreign terrorist
organizations; the Alien Terrorist Removal Act, which is designed to
deport alien terrorists in a prompt manner without disclosing vital
national security information; and increased funding for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies.
Now, last week we brought this up before the recess first, I think,
for the record. So we had this almost filibuster on the budget with
tons of amendments that took, I do not know how many, 10, 20 hours to
vote on the amendments. That lost us 24 hours in the process. By
design? I do not know, but it happened and we wasted a lot of time.
I told the President I wanted to pass this bill on the Senate side
before the Memorial Day recess, and we did bring it up. And then we
were flooded with amendments, again maybe by design and maybe not. But
the President is the leader of the Democratic Party. He said last week,
``There are too many amendments (to the Senate bill) that threaten too
much delay.''
I happen to agree with the President on that, but I have not seen any
evidence of any active engagement by the White House in the legislative
process on the other side of the aisle. The last count was, as I said,
67, 69.
The bottom line is that words of complaint will not be enough.
Complaining about delay may make for good politics, but what we need
from the President is not words but leadership.
I want to fulfill the President's request. I want to pass the
antiterrorism bill promptly, without delay. But if we are going to
accomplish this goal, the President will have to move off the sidelines
and get into the game, as we need his help. It is not enough to make
the speeches, not enough to make the radio addresses, not enough to say
whatever. We ought to pass it. But particularly in the U.S. Senate,
where any group of Senators can slow things down--and we have had
almost a record performance this year by my colleagues on the other
side--this happens to be a bill that is not partisan. It is bipartisan.
It is something that the President claims credit for. It seems to me it
would be in his interest to have somebody up here trying to make
certain that we pass the bill.
If we do not complete action by the close of business tomorrow, I
will have no other choice but to withdraw the antiterrorism bill and
move on to other legislative business. If we can get consent to vote on
cloture tomorrow, we will find out how many people really want this
bill, or whether this bill will become a Christmas tree where everybody
has a political agenda and they want to put it on the antiterrorism
bill. I believe that would be a grave mistake. We have a full plate
here in the Senate. We have telecommunications, and I promised both
Senators Pressler and Hollings for the last 2 or 3 weeks that we would
like to finish that this week. We have welfare reform and regulatory
reform, just to name a few. All of these will take some time.
We do not have time to get bogged down for 3 weeks on a very
important bill with amendments that are not important at all, for the
most part, and just making statements or having votes when the
amendments could be accepted. I have heard that many of the amendments
will be accepted. Let us not waste 20 or 30 minutes on rollcall votes
on 15 or 20 amendments that can be accepted. It seems to me that if our
colleagues want to pass this bill, accepting it is just as good as
having a vote, and we can save a lot of time.
We will be in late tonight, and votes will start at 5 o'clock. It is
not in the interests of the American people to delay. We can always
return to the antiterrorism bill, and this might be something to do
during the August recess if we cannot get it done now. We are going to
be here for part of August, no doubt about it. Maybe this will be a
priority during the first 2 or 3 weeks during what might have been the
August recess.
Mr. President, of all the antiterrorist proposals under
consideration, habeas corpus bears perhaps most directly on the tragic
events in Oklahoma City. If we really want justice that is ``swift,
certain, and severe,'' as President Clinton urged, then we must stop
the endless appeals and endless delays that have done so much to weaken
public confidence of our system of criminal justice.
According to Princeton Prof. John Diiulio, more than 330,000
Americans were murdered during the 16 years between 1977 and 1993. Yet,
during the same period, only 2,716 people were placed on death row and
only 226 convicted killers have actually been executed. In America,
today there is clearly a big disconnect between crime and punish.
Our habeas corpus reform proposal seeks to bridge this gap by
imposing a 1-year filing deadline on all death row inmates, State or
Federal. It limits convicted killers in State or Federal court to one
habeas petition. That is one bite at the apple. In contrast, under
current law, there is virtually no limit to the number of petitions a
convicted killer may file. It requires the Federal courts, once a
petition is filed, to complete judicial action within a specified
period of time.
In fact, if the Federal Government prosecutes the Oklahoma City case
and the death penalty is sought and imposed, the execution of the
sentence could take as little as 1 year if these reforms are enacted
into law. Otherwise, it might take 5, 10, 15 years. It seems to me it
is a step that ought to be taken, a step the President talked about on
``60 Minutes.'' Somebody said he wanted habeas corpus reform. Habeas
corpus reform is an essential component of any serious antiterrorism
plan. The relatives of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing
have traveled all the way to Washington today to make this very point.
In fact, I think there is a press conference going on as I speak. They
want Congress to act on these reforms and act now. That is the view
also shared by a bipartisan group of State attorneys general, including
Drew Edmondson, the Democratic attorney general of Oklahoma.
In a recent letter to President Clinton, these attorneys general
write:
Expedited consideration of [habeas corpus reform]
legislation in the context of the antiterrorism 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.
Despite his positive comments about habeas reform in a ``60 Minutes''
interview, President Clinton has written me urging me to exclude habeas
corpus reform. One day he is for it, and the next day he says exclude
it. Do not bring it in now because it might upset some of the liberals
on the other side of the aisle.
The President has publicly chided Members of the Senate for refusing
to endorse his ``emergency wiretap'' proposal; yet, strangely enough,
the President himself refuses to endorse the one proposal that will
bear most directly on the Oklahoma City tragedy--and that is habeas
corpus reform.
Finally, Mr. President, the American people deserve the straight
story, and the straight story is that America is not an impregnable
fortress. No legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how
well-conceived, can guarantee absolute security. We can take every
possible precaution. We can pass tough laws. But in a free society
there will always be risks--a fact of life vividly demonstrated by the
recent breaches of White House security.
I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch,
for his leadership in developing an antiterrorism plan. During the past
several weeks, he has provided the intellectual glue that has kept this
effort together. I also thank my distinguished colleagues from
Oklahoma,
[[Page S7658]] Senators Nickles and Inhofe, for their input and for
their role in developing this antiterrorism plan. We all know this has
been a very difficult time for them and their constituents. So we are
especially appreciative of their invaluable help.
I had a conversation with Senator Biden from Delaware before we went
out for the recess. I believe he wants to complete action on this bill
as quickly as possible. I think with his cooperation, and with some
help from the White House and with help on this side on Republican
amendments, we can wrap this bill up. There is no reason we could not
finish it today, or certainly by tomorrow.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to President Clinton
last Thursday be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DOLE. The letter suggests that the President should help us out
on this bill. He could call his Democratic colleagues, maybe have a
White House meeting, and see if we cannot complete action on this bill.
The House has not acted. But that does not mean we cannot act. We can
act first for a change.
I say to my colleagues, let us expect a number of votes. I do not see
the managers here, but I think they are in a press conference with some
family members of the victims of the Oklahoma City tragedy. I say,
again, if the amendments can be accepted and if there is no problem
with the amendments, let us not have votes like that at 7, or 8, or 9
o'clock tonight.
With all the good will I can muster, I believe this is an important
bill, important for the American people, important for the victims'
families and those involved in Oklahoma City. Also, it is important
that we get it done. I am certainly willing to work with the President
in an effort to do that by the close of business tomorrow.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Office of the Republican Leader,
Washington, DC, June 1, 1995.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: As you may know, the Senate is
currently scheduled to resume consideration of the anti-
terrorism bill when we return on Monday, June 5. Under a
unanimous consent agreement adopted last Friday, a total of
99 amendments to the bill are in order (32 Republican
amendments and 67 Democratic amendments).
I am now in the process of urging my Republican colleagues
not to offer any unnecessary or unrelated amendments.
Hopefully, these efforts will pay off and we will be able to
reduce the number of Republican amendments to a manageable
level. During the remainder of this week, it is my hope that
you will exert similar pressure on the Democrats in the
Senate, particularly in light of your complaint yesterday
that ``there are too many amendments that threaten too much
delay.''
Mr. President, if you really want Congress to pass the
anti-terrorism bill as promptly as possible, words will not
be enough. Your active involvement in discouraging Democratic
Senators from offering unnecessary and unrelated amendments
is absolutely essential.
I hope you would also call upon Congress to pass meaningful
habeas corpus reform as part of the anti-terrorism proposal
now pending before the Senate. Of all the anti-terrorism
initiatives under consideration, it is perhaps habeas corpus
reform that bears most directly on the tragic events in
Oklahoma City. In fact, if the federal government prosecutes
the Oklahoma City case and the death penalty is sought and
imposed, the execution of the sentence could take as little
as one year if the reforms in the pending legislation are
enacted into law.
Not surprisingly, a bipartisan group of State Attorneys
General, including Drew Edmondson, the Democratic Attorney
General of Oklahoma, has written that ``expedited
consideration of [habeas corpus reform] 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.''
Finally, I was struck by how your radio address last
Saturday characterized the anti-terrorism legislation now
pending before the Senate. The address described the
legislation in very personal terms, as ``my proposal,'' ``my
anti-terrorism bill,'' ``the legislation I proposed.'' With
all due respect, Mr. President, this legislation is a
bipartisan product, incorporating many initiatives proposed
by Republicans and Democrats alike. The simple fact is that
the anti-terrorism plan now before the Senate does not belong
to any one party or any one political figure. It belongs to
the American people.
Sincerely,
Bob Dole.
____________________