[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7718-S7733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:45 
having arrived and passed, the Senate will now resume consideration of 
S. 735, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative 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/Dole amendment No. 1199, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Hatch (for Smith) amendment No. 1203 (to amendment No. 
     1199), to make technical changes.
       Hatch (for Pressler) amendment No. 1205 (to amendment No. 
     1199), to establish Federal penalties for the production and 
     distribution of false identification documents.
       Hatch (for Specter) amendment No. 1206 (to amendment No. 
     1199), to authorize assistance to foreign nations to procure 
     explosives detection equipment.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to make a brief statement so all my 
colleagues understand the situation. We were supposed to start this 
amendment at 9:45. I have been prepared since last night. I was here on 
the floor at 9:30 this morning and have been here straight through, but 
I do feel it crucial that the chairman of the committee be here because 
he and I are trying to work out this amendment.
  I think it very important that he hears my arguments. It is a very 
straightforward amendment that deals with extending the statute of 
limitations to give our law enforcement people more of a chance to go 
after and arrest and convict those who would violate some very serious 
laws that are on our books.
  I have brought this amendment to the Senate floor because of Oklahoma 
City, and I feel it is so important that I have sent a message through 
the Republican leadership that I will be ready [[Page S7719]] to go the 
moment that Senator Hatch returns to the floor. He is in a hearing. One 
of the problems around here is that we have to be in so many places at 
once.
  But I do think it is the right thing for this bill, for the American 
people that the chairman of the committee be here when I offer this 
amendment. I do not think it should be contentious, but it may be 
contentious, and I want to make sure we have a fair debate. That is the 
reason for the delay.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, I explained to the 
Senate that I was awaiting the arrival of the chairman of the 
committee, the Senator from Utah, who is at a hearing at this time. The 
reason I was waiting for him is because he expressed some concern with 
my amendment and at the same time he expressed an interest in working 
the amendment out. Therefore, I thought it would save some time if he 
were present when I went through these arguments. But he has sent a 
message through the leadership that he would prefer if I lay this 
amendment down. So with the indulgence of the Senate, I will send the 
amendment to the desk.


                Amendment No. 1214 to Amendment No. 1199

 (Purpose: To increase the periods of limitation for violations of the 
                         National Firearms Act)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment 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 California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1214 to amendment No. 1199.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 as follows:

       On page 17, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 108. INCREASED PERIODS OF LIMITATION FOR NATIONAL 
                   FIREARMS ACT VIOLATIONS.

       Section 6531 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively; and
       (2) by amending the matter immediately preceding 
     subparagraph (A), as redesignated, to read as follows: ``No 
     person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any 
     criminal offense under the internal revenue laws unless the 
     indictment is found or the information instituted not later 
     than 3 years after the commission of the offense, except that 
     the period of limitation shall be--
       ``(1) 5 years for offenses described in section 5861 
     (relating to firearms and other devices); and
       ``(2) 6 years--.''.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what I plan to do is make the case for my 
amendment. I believe it is one that should receive the unanimous 
agreement of the Senate, both Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope 
that it will, and if there is still a problem when the chairman of the 
full committee arrives, I will indulge the Senate once again to repeat 
for him the reasons why I think this amendment is compelling.
  Mr. President, this amendment comes as a direct result of the 
Oklahoma experience. That is why my amendment is supported by the chief 
of police of Oklahoma City and 44 other chiefs of police around the 
Nation.
  The amendment I sent to the desk would extend the statute of 
limitations for violations of the National Firearms Act from 3 years to 
5 years. In other words, it would add 2 years that law enforcement has 
to complete its case and put the villains away.
  This change would equalize the period of limitations for the National 
Firearms Act with the vast majority of other Federal laws. I think that 
is the most important point I can make. This is really a conforming 
amendment. If you look at all the gun laws in the criminal law, they 
have a 5-year statute. This is an anomaly. We have a 3-year statute 
here.
  So the amendment is fair. It would give prosecutors a badly needed 
tool. What is this tool? It is more time. It is more time to build 
their case against violent criminals and terrorists. I want to make a 
point here. We are not talking about a little game of cops and robbers. 
We are talking about terrorists and violent criminals who make bombs, 
who make sawed-off shotguns, who make silencers. That is what the 
National Firearms Act addresses, and that is why we need this 5-year 
statute of limitations.
  I want to point out that this provision has been requested by the 
Justice Department. It was included in the administration's bill, and 
although the pending bill incorporates many of the administration's 
antiterrorism provisions, for whatever reason, this section was dropped 
out of the new bill. I think it is important to put it back in.
  Again, I want to make it clear that this amendment is directly 
related to preventing terrorism generally and to the Oklahoma City case 
in particular.
  It is likely that when the investigation into the Oklahoma City 
bombing is completed, the suspects will be charged with illegally 
manufacturing a bomb. That crime is a violation of the National 
Firearms Act, and only the National Firearms Act.
  We need to give law enforcement more time. There may be one person 
involved in the Oklahoma City tragedy, or there may be two. There may 
be 10 or 100. It is complicated to put the case together. We need to 
give law enforcement time.
  The National Firearms Act, the act I am amending, governs some of the 
most important firearms offenses on the books. The NFA makes it a crime 
to make a fully automatic machine gun. That is a crime. It makes it a 
crime to possess a sawed-off shotgun, or to make a homemade silencer.
  Now, surely those offenses are serious and complex enough to merit a 
5-year statute. In addition, it covers the making of a destructive 
device, or a bomb. So we have the fully automatic machine gun, a sawed-
off shotgun, a homemade silencer, and an incendiary device, or a bomb.
  Surely, law enforcement should have 5 years to complete their case, 
just as they do for all other gun laws.
  The NFA, the National Firearms Act which I am amending, is the act 
which deals with homemade fertilizer bombs, Molotov cocktails. It is 
the only statute that deals with them. It has a 3-year statute of 
limitations instead of the 5-year. That means that any charges brought 
for violations of the NFA must be filed within 3 years of the crime.
  To show how important this difference is, I urge my colleagues to 
consider this: If a terrorist builds a bomb in 1995, but Federal 
prosecutors are unable to gather enough evidence until 1999, they 
cannot file those charges. The statute of limitations begins running 
from the time the bomb is made. I think this is important. For the 
crime of illegal making a bomb, the statutes of limitations runs from 
the time the bomb is made--not the date the bomb was used.
  Theoretically, we could have a terrorist group make a bomb, store it 
for 2 or 3 years, use it, but by then the statute would have expired. 
So we could not get the perpetrators. That is why this amendment is so 
important. It is not just a technical change. It is a very substantive 
change. It needs to be included in this bill.
  These investigations are complicated. Yesterday, we were all moved to 
see the families from Oklahoma City asking Members to make this bill 
the law of the land in the name of the people who died. I want to see 
that happen. I want to see that happen. I also want to make sure that 
the people who perpetrated the crime are caught--each and every one of 
them.
  This investigation may lead in 3,000 different directions. We have 
heard there are thousands of leads. We should get every last individual 
who participated in this vicious crime.
  Mr. President, this is not an academic debate about periods of 
limitation. This change is badly needed. It has been requested by those 
who investigate and prosecute criminals.
  I have put on Senators' desks the names of 45 police chiefs who urge 
support for the Boxer amendment. These police chiefs are from all over 
the country, from Oklahoma City to the [[Page S7720]] east coast, the 
West, the South, the North. They are unanimous in this. They need this 
time. They need this tool.
  It could take years to unravel complex criminal conspiracies. Law 
enforcement should not be faced with an unwise artificial deadline to 
file charges. I want to say again, this is not an academic debate. I 
have been told by Federal investigators that the 3-year statute of 
limitations for the National Firearms Act has stopped actual criminal 
investigations. Indictments that would have been issued in actual 
explosive cases were not issued because of the NFA's short statute of 
limitations. Criminals could go free because the statute of limitations 
is only 3 instead of the usual 5.
  The short statute of limitations is truly an anomaly in Federal law. 
For example, possessing or manufacturing an assault weapon in violation 
of the ban passed last year has a 5-year statute of limitations, not a 
3-year statute of limitations. Manufacturing cop killer bullets has a 
5-year statute of limitations, not a 3-year statute. Manufacturing an 
undetectable firearm has a 5-year statute of limitations. However, in 
the National Firearms Act, unless we pass the Boxer amendment, we have 
a 3-year statute of limitations for crimes like making bombs, 
silencers, sawed-off shotguns.
  No one can explain to me why it makes sense to have a 5-year statute 
on carrying an assault weapon or manufacturing an assault weapon and 
only a 3-year statute for a sawed-off shotgun or a bomb. It makes no 
sense. There is no reason for it.
  The Boxer amendment addresses the problem simply. I hope and hope 
that we can all reach agreement on this and not have to argue about it. 
It is common sense to match the statutes of limitations for the vast 
majority of Federal criminal laws. We need a level playing field so 
Federal law enforcement can prosecute violent criminals more 
effectively.
  Again, I want to stress that this change was requested by the Justice 
Department and the Treasury Department, and the administration supports 
this. This is a bill where we see bipartisan support. We have Senator 
Dole, Senator Daschle, and the President of the United States speaking 
in one voice that we must pass this bill.
  Now, this is one bipartisan amendment we should be able to pass. We 
have Federal prosecutors supporting this change. Local police chiefs 
who want to keep guns and bombs out of the hands of violent criminal--
45 of them in the time we could organize.
  These law enforcement officers know that extending the statute of 
limitations for National Firearms Act offenses will make it easier to 
put violent criminals behind bars.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter signed by the 45 police chiefs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 6, 1995.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: In the wake of the Oklahoma City 
     bombing and the recent shootings of police officers around 
     the country, we, as police chiefs who are sworn to protect 
     the public and our officers, strongly urge your support for 
     the following four amendments to the upcoming anti-terrorism 
     bill:
       Cop-killer bullets.--This amendment, to be offered by 
     Senator Bradley, will prohibit ``cop-killer'' bullets based 
     on a performance standard rather than the physical 
     composition of the bullet, as current law requires.
       Multiple handgun sale forms.--This amendment, to be offered 
     by Senator Kennedy, will allow local law enforcement to keep 
     a record of multiple handgun sales rather than destroy the 
     forms, as current law requires.
       Guns for felons.--This amendment, to be offered by Senators 
     Lautenberg and Simon, will permanently close the current 
     loophole that allows some violent felons to regain their 
     right to possess firearms.
       National firearms act.--This amendment, to be offered by 
     Senator Boxer, will increase the statute of limitations for 
     violations of the National Firearms Act from three to five 
     years.
       These amendments are designed to close current loopholes in 
     federal law. They will provide law enforcement with 
     additional tools to apprehend violent offenders, vigorously 
     prosecute them and combat crime on our streets.
       We strongly urge you to demonstrate your unwavering 
     commitment to the protection of law enforcement and the 
     safety of all Americans by supporting these public safety 
     measures.
           Sincerely,
       Chief Jerry Sanders, San Diego, CA.
       Colonel Clarence Harmon, St. Louis, MO.
       Chief Louis Cobarruviaz, San Jose, CA.
       Chief Anthony D. Ribera, San Francisco, CA.
       Deputy Chief Roy L. Meisner, Berkeley, CA.
       Chief Noel K. Cunningham, Los Angeles Port, CA.
       Chief Dan Nelson, Salinas, CA.
       Chief Robert H. Mabinnis, San Leandro, CA.
       Chief James D. Toler, Indianapolis, IN.
       Chief Sam Gonzales, Oklahoma City, OK.
       Director Steven G. Hanes, Roanoke, VA.
       Chief Robert M. Zidek, Bladensburg, MD.
       Chief Charles R. McDonald, Edwardsville, IL.
       Chief Lawerence Nowery, Rock Hill, SC.
       Chief Edmund Mosca, Old Saybrook, CT.
       Chief William Nolan, North Little Rock, AR.
       Chief David C. Milchan.
       Chief Lockheed Reader, Puyallup, WA.
       Chief Peter L. Cranes, W. Yarmouth, MA.
       Chief Daniel Colucci, Kinnelton, NJ.
       Chief Gertrude Bogan, Bel Ridge, St. Louis, MO.
       Chief Reuben M. Greenberg, Charleston, SC.
       Chief Robert L. Johnson, Jackson, MS.
       Chief Robert M. St. Pierre, Salem, MA.
       Chief Douglas L. Bartosh, Scottsdale, AZ.
       Chief Perry Anderson, Cambridge, MA.
       Chief Leonard R. Barone, Haverhill, MA.
       Chief Ronald J. Panyko, Millvale, Pittsburgh, PA.
       Chief William Corvello, Newport News, VA.
       Asst. Chief James T. Miller, Dekalb Co. Police, Decatur, 
     GA.
       Chief Larry J. Callier, Opelousas, LA.
       Chief Leonard G. Cooke, Eugene, OR.
       Chief Harold L. Johnson, Mobile, AL.
       Chief Charles A. Moose, Portland, OR.
       Chief Frank Alcala, East Chicago, IN.
       Chief E. Douglas Hamilton, Louisville, KY.
       Chief Charles E. Samarra, Alexandria, VA.
       Chief Allan L. Wallis, Renton, WA.
       Chief Scott Burleson, Waukegan, IL.
       Chief C.L. Reynolds, Port St. Lucie, FL.
       Chief Sylvester Daughtry, Greensboro, NC.
       Chief Jimmie L. Brown, Miami, FL.
       Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, Buffalo, NY.
       Chief Harold L. Hurtt, Oxnard, CA.
       Chief Norm Stamper, Seattle, WA.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment should be adopted. It is 
fair. It levels the playing field for firearms crimes. It is needed. It 
is not this Senator who says it is needed; it is the people who do the 
work, the difficult law enforcement work, tracking down these leads, 
these thousands of leads, have asked for this additional tool, these 
additional 2 years.
  Mr. President, Congress talks a lot about getting tough on crime. 
There is not one of us I have not heard make a speech about, ``Let's 
crack down.'' There is a difference between talking about getting tough 
on crime and being tough on crime by giving law enforcement the tools 
that they need. This does not cost us any money. They are not asking 
for more equipment. They are not asking for bigger office space or 
another computer system. They are asking for time to track down these 
leads.
  We are in a new phase now, unfortunately, in our country. Who ever 
dreamed that we would have people within America who would build a 
device, a bomb, and kill innocent people and innocent children; turn on 
the Government of, by, and for the people, and somehow twist it around 
as if it was not America?
  It is complicated and it is new and it is different and it is 
frightening, and law enforcement needs this additional time.
  I have no other comments at this time. I have not organized a team of 
speakers because, frankly, I think this amendment is eloquent in its 
simplicity and very clear in its common sense. I hope we will have 
bipartisan support for the Boxer amendment, and at this time I yield 
the floor and reserve my right to regain the floor when the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee makes it here to the floor. I understand he is 
tied up in a committee. We expect him here I think at the top of the 
hour, and I look forward to debating with him on this amendment if in 
fact he feels it is not appropriate.
  But I hope against hope that he will in fact embrace this amendment 
and we can once again show the Nation we are united across party lines 
in our desire to go after those terrorists and give law enforcement the 
tools they need to make sure justice reigns in this great Nation of 
ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  [[Page S7721]]
  
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 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. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Fighting Crime Through Technology

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, as we proceed on this antiterrorism bill, 
I would like to discuss for a moment one provision of the bill which I 
believe is very noncontroversial but I think is very significant, and 
that is the provision of the bill that concerns the increased help, the 
increased assistance that we are going to give to local law enforcement 
in regard to giving them the tools they need to fight back, and that is 
the area of technology. This is one of the essential tools as we fight 
against terrorism.
  The bill we are discussing today strengthens the ability of local law 
enforcement officers to use high technology to combat terrorism and, 
frankly, to combat all sorts of crime. It provides for the expenditure 
of $500 million over the next 3 years to develop and upgrade some very 
important information systems. These systems provide ready access to 
criminal histories, fingerprints, DNA, and ballistic information.
  The terrorism bill will also help local law enforcement agencies 
connect into these data bases. A data base in Washington, DC, will not 
do much good if the local communities, the tens of thousands of local 
law enforcement agencies that are spread throughout this country, 
cannot access that information. Let us make no mistake about it, this 
is a very important component of this legislation, just as it has 
always been a very important component of our fight against crime.
  Last Saturday's Washington Post provided a case in point. It contains 
a detailed description of how the Oklahoma City bombing suspects were 
tracked down. Every step of the way, the suspects left a physical trail 
of evidence that could be fed into the FBI's computer database. The 
FBI, according to this story, has set up a very sophisticated computer 
system to put all kinds of information in, some relevant and some not 
relevant--you never know until it is put in. You try to make the match 
and pull it back up and use it. But according to this story, there are 
now at least 38 million bytes of information just in this database on 
just this one crime alone, the Oklahoma City bombing.
  There were 12,800 pieces of evidence collected in Oklahoma City, 
almost 13,000 pieces of evidence. The FBI computers are being used to 
analyze all this evidence. I have already told my colleagues the story 
of how the apprehension of the key Oklahoma suspect came about. It is 
truly a compelling story. An Oklahoma City detective found a piece of 
tattered metal at the crime scene. On this piece of metal, he found a 
vehicle identification number, or a VIN number--one little piece of 
evidence. He fed this VIN number into the National Insurance Crime 
Bureau. In a matter of seconds, the bombing truck was identified.
  Meanwhile, an Oklahoma State trooper had pulled over the fleeing 
suspect for driving without a license plate. The trooper had no idea at 
that time the person he pulled over was a suspect in a major crime, but 
he called the National Crime Information Center to ask for some data on 
the suspicious motorist, and when he tapped into the system, that left 
a fingerprint into the system. In a moment, we will see the importance 
of that.
  Later on, the FBI, based on the information they had obtained from 
that VIN number--we will jump forward now, a lot of work, a lot of 
tracking--they were able to get the name of Timothy McVeigh.
  Later, when the FBI fed the name Timothy McVeigh into their 
computers, the computer informed them, because of this fingerprint that 
had been placed into the system, of his arrest on these unrelated 
charges. Thanks to this technological edge, the FBI was able to find 
out an obscure arrestee was in fact America's most wanted criminal 
suspect.
  The McVeigh arrest demonstrates how our technological edge can work 
and how in fact it can help solve crime, how in fact it can and does 
save lives.
  Another story which was in last Friday's paper shows again the 
importance of technology. On May 28, a North Carolina State trooper 
arrested a motorist for speeding. Using established procedure, the 
trooper ran the motorist's name in the North Carolina State computer 
databank. The trooper did not run the motorist's name in the national 
database. That was apparently the procedure in the State at that time--
just to run it in the State database, but not the national base. The 
motorist's name did not show up in the State databank. If the trooper 
had run the motorist's name in the national databank, he would have 
discovered the driver was wanted for the shooting of two Washington, 
DC, police officers and the attempted murder of his girlfriend. Eleven 
hours after he was arrested for speeding in North Carolina and 
released, the suspect killed an FBI agent in a shootout in the 
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
  My purpose in telling the story is not to put blame on anyone, not to 
be judgmental, but again to point out how very, very important it is 
that these databases be used and how they can in fact not only solve 
crime but how they can save lives.
  Mr. President, as a result of this incident, North Carolina has 
taken, to use the phrase, the ``worthy step'' of encouraging its 
troopers to run the names of all out-of-State suspects in the national 
computer. You never know. It certainly does not hurt to ask.
  Last month I introduced a comprehensive crime bill, and one of the 
key elements of my proposed legislation was a renewed focus on 
crimefighting technology on making sure that the local crimefighters 
are in fact plugged into a truly all-inspiring national database. 
Technology is already a proven tool in the fight against terrorism. One 
of the suspects in the World Trade Center bombing was tracked down--
listen to this--because he left a DNA sample in the saliva he left when 
he sealed an envelope containing a letter to the New York Times. In 
that letter he claimed responsibility on behalf of his terrorist group. 
But unknown to him, he left indelible proof of his own identity in the 
DNA. Mr. President, we have the tools to win this fight. Let us use 
them.
  I want to thank Senator Dole and Senator Hatch, two individuals who 
have worked on this bill, for the job that they have done, and for 
including my provision that I wrote and put in the crime bill--taking 
that section and putting it in this antiterrorism bill because it has a 
lot to do with solving the problem of terrorism in this country and has 
a lot to do with this technology in solving all crimes.
  It would be a crime--if I could use the term--if we did not make sure 
that every law enforcement agency in this country was able to tap into 
this national database. It would be wrong if for a relatively small 
amount of money we did not make sure that not only did we tap into the 
information and pull it back out but that we could get information from 
every law enforcement agency in the country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two articles which I 
just referred to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, June 3, 1995]

               How Detectives Cracked Oklahoma Bomb Case

                           (By Pierre Thomas)

       Oklahoma City.--Three weeks ago, a 40-foot-long tractor-
     trailer secretly left here loaded with cargo that holds clues 
     to the deadliest terrorist bombing in U.S. history.
       Riding shotgun on the truck were armed federal agents 
     guarding more than 7,000 pounds of evidence. The truck 
     carried parts of a rental truck used to store the massive 
     bomb that blasted the federal building here April 19 and a 
     yellow Mercury Marquis, the car of prime suspect Timothy 
     James McVeigh. Final destination of the truck was a 
     laboratory at 10th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW in 
     Washington, the FBI's headquarters.
       In coming days, forensics experts plan to reconstruct as 
     much of the truck as possible and dust every part of 
     McVeigh's car for fingerprints, using lasers and the latest 
     in latent fingerprint technology. They also will swab and 
     vacuum the car to capture tiny particles and chemically 
     analyze every bit of soil, hair, fiber and residue in an 
     effort to [[Page S7722]] link McVeigh and others to the 
     bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
       While the overall probe has been conducted in the glare of 
     publicity, much of the crucial investigative work has 
     involved behind-the-scenes forensics technology and use of 
     computers to a degree never before seen in a criminal 
     inquiry. In much the same way authorities are
      trying to use DNA analysis in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. 
     FBI officials want to be able to provide a jury with reams 
     of precise and detailed evidence tying suspects to the 
     case. ``This case is juxtaposition of 21st century 
     technology and tried police work,'' a senior enforcement 
     official said.
       The chase for clues began two hours after the bombing. 
     Oklahoma City detective Mike McPherson, surveying what looked 
     like a war scene, noticed a piece of tattered metal that at 
     first glance appeared to be just another mangled reminder of 
     the explosion that left 168 dead. Looking closer, he could 
     see the metal was an axle, charred and twisted at both ends, 
     suggesting it might have been at the explosion's epicenter. 
     Methodically cleaning it, he found a partial vehicle 
     identification number (VIN). Law enforcement had its first 
     big break in the case and immediately turned to computers for 
     help.
       McPherson called the identification number to the National 
     Insurance Crime Bureau, which keeps a database that stores 
     300 million automobile VINs and other records. In seconds, 
     the computer determined the axle came from a 1993 Ford truck 
     eventually sold to Ryder Rentals of Miami. At the FBI's 
     request, Ryder found the truck had been sent to Elliott's 
     Body Shop in Junction City, Kan.
       The night of the bombing, agents from the FBI's Salinas, 
     Kan., office contacted Elliott's and, by morning, had 
     descriptions of two suspects, John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 
     2. Composite drawings were developed, using computers to make 
     them appear more lifelike. The FBI also took all the 
     documents John Doe No. 1 signed to look for fingerprints that 
     might match McVeigh's.
       ``It hit me later that the VIN number was a special number, 
     that this was a very big deal,'' McPherson said, noting the 
     computers had saved time, doing in seconds work that earlier 
     might have taken hours.
       ``From that rental shop, we started to expand the 
     investigation out in concentric circles,'' one senior law 
     enforcement official said. ``We planned to go to every 
     restaurant, gas station, hotel between there and Oklahoma 
     City.''
       More than 1,000 FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms agents were flown in from around the country, 
     including heads of the FBI's Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and New 
     Orleans field offices. At sites near the blast, agents 
     requested store video surveillance tapes and used computers 
     to enhance the images, hoping McVeigh or others with him 
     could have stopped at a convenience store in days preceding 
     the bombing.
       On Thursday, April 20, FBI agents reached the Dreamland 
     Hotel in Junction City. The manager recognized the composite 
     of John Doe No. 1, a young cleanshaven man with a military 
     crewcut. The man, hotel officials said, had stayed in Room 25 
     and had been driving a large Ryder truck. He also had 
     registered as Timothy McVeigh.
       Around that time, a former co-worker of McVeigh's saw the 
     composite sketch on television and called the FBI, telling 
     agents McVeigh expressed anger at the federal government and 
     agitation over the federal-Branch Davidian standoff near 
     Waco, Tex., court records said.
       A day earlier, about 90 minutes after the bombing, Oklahoma 
     state trooper Charles D. Hangar had seen a yellow Mercury 
     Marquis without a license plate driving up Interstate 35 near 
     Perry. The driver was McVeigh, who also was carrying a 
     concealed semiautomatic pistol.
       Curious, Hangar later queried the FBI's National Crime 
     Information Center (NCIC), a national law enforcement 
     database that includes details on outstanding warrants and 
     fugitives. Hangar had no idea he had just arrested the 
     bombing's prime
      suspect, but his data request left a fingerprint in the 
     system.
       At 7 a.m. Friday, April 21, NCIC officials plugged 
     McVeigh's name into the database and saw information flash on 
     their computer terminals. It showed he had been arrested and 
     offered the name of the arresting law enforcement agency. 
     What they did not know was where and if McVeigh was still 
     being held.
       Two agents--one FBI, the other ATF--were assigned to track 
     down McVeigh and began calling jails near the location of his 
     arrest. They learned McVeigh was being held at the Noble 
     County Jail and soon would be released.
       McVeigh then became the investigation's focal point. Even 
     before bringing McVeigh into custody, agents began to dissect 
     his life history and associates. The plan was simple: find 
     out who McVeigh spent time with, and other suspects would pop 
     up, hopefully even John Doe No. 2, who had not been found. 
     The plan seemed simple but its execution was complex since 
     McVeigh, after serving in the Army, had drifted from Michigan 
     to Arizona.
       Agents obtained a Michigan driver's license from McVeigh, 
     and a computer check of the state's motor vehicle records 
     listed a Decker, Mich., address. Authorities learned two 
     brothers, James and Terry Lynn Nichols, at some time had 
     resided there. McVeigh had been stationed in Fort Riley, 
     Kan.; had recently lived in Kingman, Ariz.; and had family in 
     Pendleton, N.Y. Terry Nichols, the second suspect arrested in 
     the case, lived in Herington, Kan.
       As the investigation broadened, command posts were set up 
     in any area offering promising leads--Kingman, Chicago, Los 
     Angeles and Kansas. A national hotline was established to 
     take tips, and tens of thousands of calls came in. ``We were 
     chasing everything that made sense, credit records, telephone 
     records,''
      one senior law enforcement source said.
       A Justice Department team flew in computer terminals to 
     link into the department's Eagle system, which allows federal 
     prosecutors around the nation to communicate electronically. 
     At the same site, a Southwestern Bell Co. warehouse downtown 
     here, the FBI installed 20 to 30 computer terminals and flew 
     in a team to set up Rapid Start, a three-year-old automated 
     case filing system used in investigating the World Trade 
     Center bombing.
       As leads came in, they were typed onto a standardized form 
     and then encoded into Rapid Start. There are now at least 38 
     million bytes of information on the Oklahoma bombing stored 
     in the database.
       The FBI has subpoenaed records from telephone companies 
     around the country, which establish more than 66,000 calls 
     made by McVeigh, Nichols and other associates. Those calls 
     were punched into the database, allowing investigators to 
     sort for patterns.
       The 12,800 pieces of evidence collected in Oklahoma City, 
     including some of the rubble and shrapnel taken from the many 
     victims, now are being analyzed. Much of the work is tedious 
     as experts will try to match the chemical composition of 
     explosive residue found at the scene to that allegedly found 
     on McVeigh's clothes and in his vehicle. Similar work is 
     being done on items recovered from Terry Nichols's home.
       But the technology has not eliminated the need for a 
     critical component in most investigations--simple luck. If 
     detective McPherson had not stumbled upon the axle quickly, 
     it could have taken months to track down McVeigh, one law 
     enforcement official noted. Computers or nothing else would 
     have mattered, he said.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Washington Post, June 2, 1995]

          N. C. Officer Arrested Agent's Killer Hours Earlier

                    (By Brian Mooar and Bill Miller)

       A North Carolina state trooper arrested Ralph McLean for 
     speeding 11 hours before the Landover man fatally shot an FBI 
     agent in Greenbelt, but the trooper failed to check his name 
     against a national database of wanted criminals, officials 
     said yesterday.
       A check of the FBI's National Crime Information Center 
     computer would have turned up an outstanding warrant for 
     McLean, who was wanted in the shootings of two D.C. police 
     officers and in the attempted murder of his girlfriend, 
     authorities said.
       Washington area law enforcement officials privately 
     expressed frustration over the missed opportunity to catch 
     McLean before he killed FBI agent William H. Christian Jr. 
     and then shot himself to death in a wild gun battle early 
     Monday. North Carolina state police said the trooper followed 
     the department's policy discouraging federal checks on 
     stopped motorists who do not behave in a suspicious manner.
       But after considering what happened with McLean, North 
     Carolina on Wednesday adopted a new policy to run checks on 
     out-of-state motorists pulled over by troopers.
       Trooper J. Harold Lee stopped McLean about 2 p.m. Sunday 
     after clocking the man's blue 1992 Oldsmobile at 82 mph in a 
     65- mph zone on northbound Interstate 95 in Johnston County 
     near the hamlet of Smithfield. McLean, who has been described 
     as having a pathological hatred toward law enforcement 
     officers, sat next to Lee in his cruiser and made small talk 
     while the 21-year veteran trooper wrote his speeding 
     citation.
       ``He was polite [and] cooperative,'' Lee said. ``No 
     indication of anything being out of the ordinary. He was in a 
     little bit of a hurry. That's all that was indicated * * * . 
     He just wanted to know how long it would take.''
       But as McLean followed Lee to the local magistrate's 
     office, where McLean posted a $200 bond for the speeding 
     violation, the trooper saw him make a call on a cellular 
     telephone and became suspicious.
       Although the North Carolina Highway Patrol's procedures did 
     not require a name check on McLean, Lee ran McLean's driver's 
     license number through a state computer system and found 
     nothing. If he had entered McLean's name in the FBI computer, 
     officials said yesterday, he would have learned of a warrant 
     charging McLean with assault with intent to kill a D.C. 
     police officer in January.
       ``There's nothing I could have done any different,'' Lee 
     said. ``It was a routine stop that we make daily on the 
     interstate, and there's no other way to do it.''
       Capt. Raymond W. Isley, commander of the North Carolina 
     Highway Patrol's interstate division, said the department has 
     ordered national checks on all out-of-state motorists pulled 
     over by its troopers.
       ``We reviewed this case because . . . it's a tragedy,'' 
     Isley said. Isley said his department has not routinely 
     conducted federal checks because they tie up dispatchers, and 
     ``we don't want to get implicated with unduly delaying 
     people. We generally don't do it unless there is a need to do 
     it. Ninety-nine and nine-tenths of the people are not 
     criminals. . . . [[Page S7723]] 
       ``If we get suspicious of you, we do [checks],' 'Isley 
     said. ``But in this case, the man was very polite, very 
     cordial. This was a seasoned officer, and he was looking for 
     something out of the ordinary. But [McLean] controlled 
     himself very well in his presence.''
       Hours later, about 1 a.m. Monday, McLean crept up to an 
     unmarked cruiser in the parking lot of Greenbelt Middle 
     School and fatally shot Christian, one of 27 investigators 
     waiting to surprise him. McLean was hit by seven bullets and 
     then took his own life, the Maryland state medical examiner's 
     office said.
       McLean was carrying the semiautomatic assault pistol used 
     to kill Prince George's County police Cpl. John J. Novabilski 
     in an April 26 shooting, and he died of a bullet from 
     Novabilski's stolen Beretta 9mm service pistol.
       The National Crime Information Center is an FBI office that 
     maintains a database for state and local law enforcement 
     agencies that receives 1.3 million inquiries a day, the FBI 
     said. The computer tracks nearly 400,000 people wanted for 
     crimes, as well as data concerning crime-related categories. 
     Authorities can learn whether a person has significant 
     outstanding warrants or a criminal history.
       McLean's name was listed on the computer Saturday when D.C. 
     police obtained a warrant for his arrest in the shooting of 
     city police Sgt. Eric L. Hayes.
       Law enforcement specialists said the service was designed 
     to protect not only the public but also the nation's police 
     officers by alerting them to dangerous suspects.
       Policies on routine federal checks vary among Washington 
     area departments. Virginia State Police do not require checks 
     on traffic violators. Maryland state troopers are urged to 
     check the driver and the car through the federal system.
       ``We check for any warrants or wanted [alerts] for the 
     people or the vehicle,'' said Mike McKelvin, a Maryland State 
     Police spokesman.
       Lee, who retires in 11 days, said the traffic stop was 
     indistinguishable from tens of thousands he had made until 
     Monday afternoon, when a Maryland homicide detective called 
     him after finding the speeding citation among McLean's 
     belongings.
       Lee said he is convinced that he did everything right 
     during his 45-minute encounter with McLean--and that he was 
     lucky things didn't turn out differently after McLean opened 
     the trunk of his car and rooted through luggage to find his 
     driver's license.
       ``I was just very fortunate the stop ended like it did for 
     myself,'' Lee said. ``Maybe the Lord was looking after me.''

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Ohio that I 
applaud his efforts. As he knows, in the crime bill that we passed we 
provided $100 million for just these purposes. As a matter of fact, it 
has been over a decade ago that I initiated an effort in the first 
crime bill introduced to get the NCIC up to speed to actually make it 
work. We received some considerable resistance then interestingly 
enough from the very left and the very right, the right because, as the 
Presiding Officer notes, the right is always concerned about anyone 
when anything has to do with Government having power, and the left 
because they are concerned about the Government having power. So it was 
stalled for a while in the so-called Biden crime bill which passed out 
of here.
  I wanted that number to be higher out of the trust fund. The most we 
could get any agreement on was $100 million. I do not quibble with the 
notion that we could effectively spend more money.
  The Senator may recall, because he was in the House at the time, that 
the local authorities thought they could get by with the $100 million 
as long as the FBI was essentially going to be the purchasing agent for 
them. What we do not want to have happen is a little police department 
in central Ohio or southern Delaware--they may be the very people who 
pick up the McVeigh's of the world--and we do not want them to be in 
the position where in order for them to purchase this equipment and 
some of the more automated fingerprinting capability, the 
NCIC, the blood and saliva DNA capability, we do not want them to be 
out there since they are purchasing a very small quantity of whatever 
it is that is being purchased having to pay considerably more than the 
police department in Columbus, or New York, or Wilmington, DE, or 
Philadelphia has to pay. But as it turns out they have concluded that 
they need more help.
  Again, I look forward to working with my friend from Ohio on this 
issue as the continuation of an effort that he supported when he was in 
the House as well. He is not new to this. He knows this area as well as 
anyone does.
  One of the things at some point--I will not take the time now because 
the distinguished Senator from California who has been waiting since 
9:30 to go with her amendment is ready to go now that the chairman of 
the committee is here. We will have a long day today. Maybe the Senator 
and I, as we say, can repair to the cloakroom. I would like to talk 
about his formula which he has built in here which is the distribution 
based strictly on population which seems at odds with the notion that 
we acknowledge that these little police departments, and smaller areas 
in population, also in a strange way need the help more than even the 
large police departments.
  So I acknowledge at the front end the parochial interest in that 
Delaware is a small State and under the formula would be in a 
disadvantageous position for this additional funding. I do not expect 
the Senator to change his formula. I would like to make my case to him 
since this is esoteric.
  Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator will yield for a moment, let me 
congratulate the Senator from Delaware because he really has been a 
leader in this area. I had the opportunity about 2 months ago to go to 
the FBI and look to see exactly where all of these systems were. It is 
amazing the progress that they have made. In the last several crime 
bills there has been systems in there, and I know particularly that the 
Senator from Delaware has been a prime leader in this area. Frankly, 
what the FBI tells me is that they are moving along very, very well. 
The background for my writing this section was frankly what the FBI 
told me, and also what local law enforcement told me. That was, look, I 
say we are moving along very, very well, quite frankly thanks to what 
the Congress has done. A significant amount of money Congress has put 
in.
  But they said, ``Senator, let us tell you the one concern we have; 
that is, our database is only as good as the information we get. Our 
concern is that some of these small departments--which the Senator from 
Delaware is referring to--will not have the resources. They will not 
have the ability to tap in.''
  So I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware in regard 
to the formula. Our idea, frankly, is to make sure that every police 
officer in the country--some way, either through his or her own 
department or through a consortium or through the departments going 
together--has the ability to put that information into the computer and 
to get it back out. Frankly, my only interest is making it work. So, if 
we can come up with a formula that works better to do that, I am more 
than happy to work with the Senator to do that.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, that is why I rose to speak to this to 
divert slightly from the amendment process. I am not being so 
solicitous. I know of the Senator's interest, knowledge, and genuine 
concern about this. One thing that he did not mention that he has in 
the past, but I think it is worth noting here, is this information also 
has the ancillary benefit of saving police officers' lives. The 
Presiding Officer knows that in his State of Pennsylvania he has had a 
rough year already with loss of police officers' lives. It has not been 
a good year. The start has not been a good one.
  It is very, very, very practical information when that trooper pulls 
up behind an automobile. If he has the system and equipment in his 
automobile and the database is real, he literally can, before he gets 
out of the car, punch in and find out if that automobile is not only 
stolen but where and when and how.
  He also has the capability, if we give him the capability and if the 
States step up to the ball, of using this portable, automatic 
fingerprinting operation where they can literally have a driver come up 
into their automobile--what the average citizen would think is a 
portable fingerprinting machine--to actually have that person get out 
of the car, walk up, stick their thumb or forefinger in this machine in 
the automobile, and instantly get a readout as to whether or not the 
license that they are carrying comports with their identity. 
[[Page S7724]] 
  This not only makes a lot of sense in terms of tracking and using it 
as a device to solve crimes, but it also has the immediate benefit of 
literally saving lives of police officers. As a former prosecutor, the 
Senator from Ohio knows this. In my discussion with police--and, as you 
know, the head of the FOP and a number of leading members of the FOP 
are from the home State of the Senator from Ohio--they know of his work 
and his interest in this area.
  So I compliment him on his initiative and thank him for his 
willingness to speak with me about the formula. With that, unless the 
Senator from Ohio wishes to say anything else, I see the distinguished 
Senator from California is on her feet and is ready to go with her 
amendment, I think, or is she?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am absolutely ready to go with the amendment. My 
friend, the good Senator from Ohio, has been with me here since 9:30 
this morning. I was ready to go at that time. I did lay down my 
amendment. As my friend from Delaware knows, there is some concern on 
the other side, although I think it is not all that widely based, that 
we should narrow the scope of my amendment. It is not my intention to 
do that.
  I am ready to vote on my amendment right now. I say to my friend from 
Delaware, I would greatly appreciate his views on my amendment because 
I have expressed mine. If I can have some time at this point, I can 
summarize in 5 minutes and then I would love to have my friend from 
Delaware react to the amendment and perhaps express his view as to 
whether it is a commonsense amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, I 
am anxious to do that. I sincerely hope she does not amend her 
amendment. I will, in time, at an appropriate time, explain why I hope 
that is not the case. I am of the view that if Senators listen to this 
debate or this discussion, I think it is very, very difficult to make a 
case why the exception being sought should be granted. I will yield the 
floor back to the Senator, have her make her case, and I am prepared 
and anxious to speak to her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1214

  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. About one-half hour 
ago, I laid down my amendment which would really, I think, add a lot of 
common sense to our gun laws, because we seem to have two sets of 
statutes of limitations.
  Generally, gun laws and criminal laws have a 5-year statute of 
limitations, except for the National Firearms Act, which has a 3-year 
statute, which means that the police have to complete their work on 
sometimes very complicated cases, in 3 years.
  Now, what are these cases? And this is where I think Senators ought 
to listen. There are only three cases: The making of a bomb, such as 
the bomb that was made in Oklahoma City, is only covered in the 
National Firearms Act. So we have to go after these terrorists. This is 
the place. Law enforcement is asking us for 5 years, not the 3 that 
they have. That is one case.
  The other case is the making of a sawed-off shotgun. The only place 
where that crime is covered is in this law, and we think there ought to 
be a 5-year statute.
  And the third, the making of a silencer, is covered in this 
particular statute, which I would like to amend to 5 years.
  So what we are suggesting is that those three areas--silencers, 
sawed-off shotguns, and bombs--ought to be covered by the same statute 
of limitations as exists in, for example, the assault weapon ban, cop-
killer bullets, and all criminal laws, which basically have a 5-year 
statute.
  I see that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. I was 
hopeful that maybe that indicated we could move this along by simply 
accepting it because it is, in fact, an amendment that really comes to 
this floor via law enforcement.
  On Senators' desks I have the names of 45 police chiefs who urge 
support for the Boxer amendment. These police chiefs are from 
California; Oregon; Washington State; Florida; New Jersey; Arizona; 
Pennsylvania; Roanoke, VA; Connecticut; Indiana; Illinois; New York; 
Massachusetts; Maryland; Arkansas; Kentucky; South Carolina; Georgia; 
Missouri; Alabama, and I do not know whether I mentioned Oklahoma City. 
The Oklahoma City chief of police wants us to adopt the Boxer 
amendment.
  Just now, I was handed a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police. 
The Fraternal Order of Police, Dewey Stokes, has sent us a letter that 
says:

       Senator Boxer will offer an amendment that will assist 
     prosecutions under the National Firearms Act. The NFA 
     prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of machine 
     guns, sawed-off shotguns and bombs. The statute of 
     limitations for NFA violations, however, is only 3 years, in 
     contrast to a 5-year statute of limitation for all other gun 
     control laws and most criminal laws. The Boxer amendment will 
     increase the statute of limitations for NFA violations to 5 
     years.

  The Fraternal Order of Police firmly supports . . . this amendment. 
And it goes on to write:

       You have supported law enforcement in the past and we hope 
     you will stand with us again by voting to approve these vital 
     propolice amendments.

  So, Mr. President, the Boxer amendment is a propolice amendment 
described that way by the Fraternal Order of Police and 45 police 
chiefs in this country who are saying to the U.S. Senate: ``Please pass 
this antiterrorism bill, but give us the tools we need.''
  And here is one tool that does not cost any money, Mr. President. 
What we are giving the law enforcement authorities is time, time to 
follow the thousands of leads, time to put together the pieces of the 
puzzle. I really hope we can have bipartisan support for this amendment 
in its entirety. The police chiefs are not just supporting part of the 
Boxer amendment, they are supporting the entire Boxer amendment, and I 
hope we can come together and move on, because as I watched the 
families of the victims of Oklahoma yesterday begging us to move 
forward a bill that would help bring these evildoers to justice, it 
certainly occurred to me that it would be tragic if the statute of 
limitations ran out.
  One thing we have to remember, the statute starts running when the 
bomb is completed. So if a terrorist builds a bomb and stores that bomb 
for a year or 2 before using it, we may be down to a year for the 
police to put together all the leads.
  So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in 
the Record the names of the 45 police chiefs who have endorsed the 
Boxer amendment and the letter from the Fraternal Order of Police that 
we just received.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1995.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate prepares to debate the anti-
     terrorism bill, on behalf of the 270,000 police officers who 
     are members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I want to 
     strongly urge that you support three pro-law enforcement 
     amendments that will be offered to the bill. The three 
     amendments concern cop-killer bullets, re-arming felons, and 
     the National Firearms Act. Specifically, the Fraternal Order 
     of Police urges your support for the following:
       Senator Bradley will offer an amendment to strengthen the 
     current cop-killer bullet law. In 1986, Congress passed and 
     President Reagan signed legislation prohibiting the 
     manufacture, importation and sale of handgun ammunition 
     capable of piercing the body armor worn by most police 
     officers. Earlier this year, the ``Black Rhino'' bullet 
     received a lot of publicity for its supposed armor-piercing 
     qualities. While the claims turned out to be exaggerated, 
     manufacture of such a bullet would have been allowed under 
     current law. Because the 1986 law prohibits bullets based on 
     their physical composition, manufacturers currently working 
     to develop ammunition like the ``Black Rhino'' would be able 
     to manufacture and market them to the public. The Bradley 
     Amendment will close this loophole by prohibiting the 
     manufacture and sale of armor-piercing ammunition based on 
     reasonable performance standards rather than composition.
       Senators Lautenberg and Simon will offer an amendment that 
     will prevent all persons convicted of a violent felony or 
     serious drug offense from ever possessing firearms. Even 
     though federal law generally prohibits a convicted felon from 
     possessing a firearm, ATF can grant a waiver to this 
     prohibition, following an extensive background investigation. 
     Although recent appropriations acts have temporarily halted 
     the use of ATF funds to restore firearm rights to convicted 
     felons, the Lautenberg/Simon Amendment will permanently close 
     this loophole by eliminating the waiver procedure. This 
     amendment will also permanently prohibit any individual 
     convicted of a violent felony or serious drug offense from 
     possessing a [[Page S7725]] firearm, even if the state might 
     have restored other civil rights to the individual. The 
     effect of this amendment, in addition to keeping guns out of 
     the hands of felons, will be to permanently free ATF 
     personnel to take guns out of the hands of criminals, rather 
     than to put them there.
       Senator Boxer will offer an amendment that will assist 
     prosecutions under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA 
     prohibits the manufacture, sale and possession of machine 
     guns, sawed-off shotguns and bombs. The statute of 
     limitations for NFA violations, however, is only three years, 
     in contrast to a five year statute of limitation for all 
     other gun control laws and most other criminal laws. The 
     Boxer Amendment will increase the statute of limitations for 
     NFA violations to five years.
       The Fraternal Order of Police firmly supports these three 
     amendments. You have supported law enforcement in the past 
     and we hope you will stand with us again by voting to approve 
     these vital pro-police amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Dewey R. Stokes
     National President.
                                                                    ____


   Forty-Five Police Chiefs Urge Your Support of the Boxer Amendment


           extend the statute of limitations for nfa offenses

       Chief Anthony D. Ribera, San Francisco, CA; Chief Charles 
     A. Moose, Portland, OR; Chief Allan L. Wallis, Renton, WA; 
     Chief Jimmie L. Brown, Miami, FA; Chief Daniel Colucci, 
     Kinnelton, NJ; Chief Douglas L. Bartosh, Scottsdale, AZ; 
     Chief Ronald J. Panyko, Millvale, PA; Deputy Chief Roy L. 
     Meisner, Berkeley, CA; Chief Dan Nelson, Salinas, CA; 
     Director Steven G. Hanes, Roanoke, VA; Chief Edmund Mosca, 
     Old Saybrook, CT; Chief Louis Cobarruviaz, San Jose, CA; 
     Chief Frank Alcala, East Chicago, IN; Chief Scott Burleson, 
     Waukegan, IL; Commission Gil Kerlikowske, Buffalo, NY; Chief 
     Robert M. St. Pierre, Salem, MA; Chief Perry Anderson, 
     Cambridge, MA; Chief William Corvello, Newport News, VA; 
     Chief Noel K. Cunningham, Los Angeles Port, CA; Chief Robert 
     H. Mabinnis, San Leandro, CA; Chief Robert M. Zidek, 
     Bladensburg, MD; Chief William Nolan, North Little Rock, AR; 
     Chief Leonard G. Cooke, Eugene, OR; Chief E. Douglas 
     Hamilton, Louisville, KY; Chief C.L. Reynolds, Port St. 
     Lucie, FA; Chief Harold L. Hurtt, Oxnard, CA; Chief Reuben M. 
     Greenberg, Charleston, SC; Chief Leonard R. Barone, 
     Haverhill, MA; Asst. Chief James T. Miller, DeKalb Co. 
     Police, Decatur, GA; Colonel Clarance Harmon, St. Louis, MO; 
     Chief James D. Toler, Indianapolis, IN; Chief Charles R. 
     McDonald, Edwardsville, IL; Chief Lockheed Reader, Puyallup, 
     WA; Chief Harold L. Johnson, Mobile, AL; Chief Charles E. 
     Samarra, Alexandria, VA; Chief Sylvester Daughtry, 
     Greensboro, NC; Chief Peter L. Cranes, W. Yarmouth, MA; Chief 
     Robert L. Johnson, Jackson, MS; Chief Gertrude Bogan, Bel 
     Ridge, MO; Chief Larry J. Callier, Opelousas, LA; Chief Norm 
     Stamper, Seattle, WA; Chief Lawerence Nowery, Rock Hill, SC; 
     Chief Sam Gonzales, Oklahoma City, OK; Chief Jerry Sanders, 
     San Diego, CA; Chief David C. Milchan, Pinellas Park, FL.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Delaware at this time 
if he would be willing to speak to this amendment? I thank the 
President and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I make an inquiry, are we making progress 
this morning?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, oh, we are doing great, I say to the 
leader. Things are moving along swimmingly. At this rate, we will be 
done.
  Mr. DOLE. I understand the Senator from California was available 
earlier. Others were not available. She was here. I do not think the 
amendment has been offered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. It has been offered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am ready to vote on it.
  Mr. DOLE. Hopefully, we can dispose of that and move on quickly to 
the other amendments. It is our intention to finish this bill today. We 
will be discussing in our conference trying to further limit the number 
of amendments on this side.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, we will make the 
same effort in our conference.
  Mr. DOLE. I think what we are doing is awaiting the return of Senator 
Hatch right now, as I understand it.


                             Habeas Corpus

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as part of the ongoing debate, not on the 
amendment, I wanted to make a brief statement on habeas corpus because 
on May 25, President Clinton wrote me urging habeas corpus reform be 
excluded, that means excluded from the antiterrorism bill pending 
before the Senate.
  The President wrote, and I quote:

       While I do not believe that habeas corpus reform should be 
     addressed in the context of the counterterrorism bill, I look 
     forward to working with the Senate in the future on a bill 
     that would accomplish this objective.

  The President apparently had a change of heart. Last night on the 
Larry King Show, the President reversed his position, endorsing the 
inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill. The President 
said:

       We need to cut the time delay on appeals dramatically, and 
     . . . it ought to be done in the context of this terrorism 
     legislation so that it would apply to any prosecutions 
     brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma. And I think it 
     ought to be done.
  I welcome the President's remarks. And I am delighted that he has 
finally come around to our position that, of all the antiterrorism 
initiatives now before the Senate, the one that bears most directly on 
the Oklahoma City tragedy is habeas corpus reform.
  Yesterday, the families of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City 
bombing traveled all the way to Washington to tell their elected 
representatives that habeas reform is an essential ingredient of any 
serious antiterrorism plan. The families understand, as we do, that if 
we really want justice that is ``swift, certain and severe,'' then we 
must put an end to the endless appeals and delays that have done so 
much to weaken public confidence in our criminal justice system. We 
must have habeas corpus reform now.
  It is great news that President has switched his position and now 
supports the inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill. 
Hopefully, the President's support will help speed up the process here 
in the Senate and enable us to pass this legislation later tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent that the President's quote on the Larry King 
Show and his letter of a couple of weeks ago--and they state different 
positions--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Excerpts From the Larry King Show

       President Clinton. In death penalty cases, it normally 
     takes eight years to exhaust the appeals. It's ridiculous. 
     And if you have multiple convictions, it cold take even 
     longer. So there is a strong sense in the Congress, I think 
     among members of both parties, that we need to get down to 
     sort of one clear appeal. We need to cut the time delay on 
     the appeals dramatically, and that it ought to be done in the 
     context of this terrorism legislation so that it would apply 
     to any prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in 
     Oklahoma. And I think it ought to be done.
       You know, we have some differences about exactly what the 
     details are and what the best and fairest way to do to apply 
     to all criminal cases, but I think it definitely ought to be 
     done.
       For 15 years I have been trying to get Congress to clarify 
     this, and I have strongly believed it for a very long time, 
     since I was an attorney general and a governor and I'd been 
     on the receiving end of these interminable appeals.
       Mr. King. Are there those in Congress who think you're 
     against this?
       Vice President Gore. There are some in both parties who, in 
     good conscience, think it would cause problems for criminal 
     procedure.
       Mr. King. Constitutional.
       Vice President Gore. Well, they're worried about it. But 
     the president's for it. And if they want to put the right 
     version of it on this bill, fine.
       Mr. King. Are we----
       President Clinton. You know, there are some good and bad. 
     We don't have time to get into all the details of it. There 
     are things that I like better in some versions than others.
       Mr. King. But you're in essence for it.
       President Clinton. But we--I'm not only for it; we need to 
     do it. You can't justify this lengthy appeal process.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                         Washington, 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 [[Page S7726]] 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 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 
     ``roving'' 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 combatting 
     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. DOLE. I suggest that we hope to finish this bill tonight. I urge 
my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that there are a 
number of Republican amendments pending, and they are not rushing to 
the floor to discuss those amendments with the manager and the chairman 
of the committee, Senator Hatch.
  Now, if we are going to suggest that the Democrats ought to 
cooperate, then we will suggest that Republicans ought to cooperate, 
too. So I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, or anybody who 
may be listening in their offices, if you have amendments, please let 
us know before noon. We would like to find out by noon on this side of 
the aisle how many amendments we have, serious amendments, and how many 
are going to be called up. Then we can go to the distinguished Senator 
from Delaware and say we have x number of amendments that will take x 
amount of hours. We hope to get time agreements so we can complete 
action on the bill later today.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me respond to the question posed to me 
by the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. There are a couple of 
things I have observed in the years of working with Senator Boxer, and 
that is when she thinks she is right, there is nothing that slows her 
up. I mean nothing. Almost without exception, in my dealings with her 
and the matters we have worked on, she has a commonsense approach to 
these things that is, quite frankly, sometimes around this place is not 
factored in. If she had stood up today on the floor of the Senate and 
said, you know, my colleagues in the Senate, the statute of limitations 
for rape is 3 years. Yet, the statute of limitations for robbery is 5 
years, and what I want to do is I want to increase the statute of 
limitations for rape from 3 to 5 years, I imagine there would be a 
chorus of Members in the Senate on both side standing up and saying, 
bravo, right.
  My goodness, why would we have a serious crime like rape be a statute 
that was only 3 years and yet a less serious crime like assault be a 5-
year statute of limitations. Because I want to make it clear--and I 
know all my colleagues and everybody on the floor here who has dealt in 
this area or are accomplished lawyers in their own right know that--let 
us keep in mind what the rationale for the statute of limitations is. 
The rationale is, the more serious the crime, the more we are committed 
to finding the perpetrator, and ofttimes that means we need more time.
  A second factor that goes into this is that some crimes are more 
difficult to solve than others because the evidence that is needed to 
solve the crime sometimes takes a long time to track down.
  Third, we have generally tried--in terms of title 18, the criminal 
code in effect for the Federal Government--to standardize the amount of 
time we give prosecutors and the Government to find perpetrators of 
crime.
  Now, the fact of the matter is that I do not think this has anything 
to do with gun control. It happens to be that we are talking about a 
Firearms Act that affects guns, but it really does not matter. It has 
everything to do with equity, and it has everything to do with giving 
the victim and the Government a chance to find the person who did the 
thing that we think is a very bad thing.
  For example, if someone is out there violating the Firearms Act with 
a machine gun, then we have as a policy, as a nation, for the past 
several decades said that is a very bad thing. Yet, there is a 3-year 
statute of limitations for that. Or if we go out and say we do not want 
people using chemical weapons or making explosives that can do great 
damage, we said in the first instance that is a bad thing to do. It is 
unhealthy for Americans, for people to be making these devices or 
putting silencers on their guns. Why do people put a silencer on a gun? 
Is it because they are target practicing in their basement and they do 
not want to disturb the folks on the second floor? Or is it because 
they do not want the deer to hear the bullet coming? Why do you use 
silencers? You use a silencer to avoid detection. And so if someone is 
out there violating the Firearms Act with a silencer or machinegun or 
building a bomb, it seems to me, just on the face of it, that we should 
give the Government and the victims enough time out there as we give 
somebody if they are assaulted. My Lord, if someone is assaulted, the 
case stays open for 5 years. Yet, if someone violates what we all say 
is a serious problem, we are saying 3 years.
  Now, look, I know that some of my friends on both sides of the aisle 
are a little concerned about this because I know that it says ``guns 
and firearms,'' and when you say that around here, that sets off bells 
and whistles and so on. But I respectfully suggest that this is totally 
consistent--although I have not spoken to the national NRA, I have 
[[Page S7727]] spoken with the NRA in my State and the leadership in my 
State. I keep in contact with them. As I said yesterday, in my State, 
the NRA are upstanding citizens. The leader in my State is a member of 
the ACLU and the NRA and is a practicing lawyer in town. The No. 2 guy 
in my State in the NRA is a former captain in a police department in 
Dover, DE. These guys are not wackos or nuts; they are serious 
citizens.
  Now, I have not spoken to them about this, but I have spoken to them 
and the national NRA about how we should be dealing with guns and gun 
offenses. What do they always say to us? They say, look, do not outlaw 
the gun, increase the penalty. So Senator Gramm comes to the floor all 
the time and makes a logical, coherent argument. He says, hey, do not 
do away with assault weapons, but if you have anybody using one, 
violating the law in its use, nail them. Minimum mandatory sentences, 
minimum mandatory imprisonment.
  And so the philosophy that the NRA has adopted--and to their credit 
it is consistent--is that people kill people, guns do not kill people. 
And only when they take that inert instrument, that thing called a gun, 
and do something bad with it, do you engage the Government.
  We have decided as a matter of law under the Firearms Act that it is 
a bad thing to go around putting silencers on the end of revolvers, or 
rifles for that matter. We decided that it is a bad thing to tote 
around a machinegun. We decided that. I do not hear any gun 
organization saying, by the way, legalize the sale of machineguns 
again. I do not hear anybody saying silencers are something we should 
be using. So I am a little surprised that there is any opposition to 
the initiative of my friend from California. The one thing she is 
probably--I will speak only of the Democratic side, so I do not 
implicate any of my Republican friends. She is among the four or five 
most successful legislators. She knows how to get things done. I assume 
that it comes from her 10 years of experience in the House. I think she 
is as surprised as I am that this may be resisted, because I cannot 
figure out why it would be. It is consistent with what--I do not want 
to put a negative spin on it--the gun proponents say is the way we 
should handle the issue of firearms in America. It is consistent. It 
relates to penalties, not outlawing them. And it is totally consistent 
with the way in which we decide under title 18 to deal with the vast 
majority of crimes.
  Now, look, this increases from 3 to 5 years the statute of 
limitations for the most serious weapons offenses, specifically those 
under the National Firearms Act. In doing so, this amendment brings the 
statute of limitations into line with the vast majority of Federal 
offenses which have to do with guns and do not have to do with guns. 
Generally, the statute of limitations is a period which the Government 
has following the crime to bring an indictment under Federal law. All 
noncapital crimes are subject to a limitation. The National Firearms 
Act covers the most dangerous weapons: machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, 
silencers, and destructive devices which include any explosive or 
incendiary or poison gas, A, bomb, B, grenade, C, rocket having a 
propellant of more than four ounces, D, missiles having explosive or 
incendiary charges of more than one-quarter of an ounce, and E, a mine.
  You know, these are not playthings we are talking about. These are 
serious offenses. Again, I do not know anybody, whether they are the 
NRA--and I stand to be corrected by anybody else--who says, by the way, 
you should not outlaw sawed-off shotguns, machineguns, and rockets 
having a propellant and the charges, grenades, bombs, incendiary 
charges of more than one-quarter ounce, and missiles.
  So all the Senator is asking for is what the police are asking for. 
It defies logic to give offenders a break by limiting the statute of 
limitations to only 3 years. The statute of limitations in other 
Federal crimes is that, as has been pointed out by the Senator from 
California, a vast majority of those crimes already are 5 years. Let me 
give you a few examples. Crimes with a 5-year statute of limitations 
include assault, 18 United States Code section 111; kidnapping, 18 
United States Code section 1201; bank robbery, 18 United States Code 
section 2113; car robbery, 18 United States Code section 2119; 
embezzlement, 18 United States Code section 641.
  I also point out that the statute of limitations is also 5 years for 
illegally importing lottery tickets, impersonating a Federal employee, 
unlawfully shipping, transporting, receiving, possessing, selling, 
distributing, or purchasing contraband cigarettes, counterfeiting, 
forging, or using any counterfeited or forged postal or revenue stamp 
of any foreign government, unauthorized use of the character Smokey the 
Bear. It is a misdemeanor, but it is a 5-year statute of limitations. 
Unauthorized use of the character Woodsy Owl. That is a 5-year statute 
of limitations.
  Now, look, if we are going to give the Government 5 years to track 
down the guy who impersonates or uses Woodsy the Owl, why in the devil 
would we not give 5 years to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to 
track down somebody who has violated the most serious weapons offenses 
that nobody I know of is suggesting we do away with?
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I think this is such a crucial 
point because if people were unhappy with the 5-year statute of 
limitations, I would assume there could be an amendment to roll it back 
to 3. All we are saying is that it is an anomaly here that three or 
four firearms laws do not match up with the vast majority. I think my 
friend has gotten it exactly right, as usual.
  If I might just say to my friend, I do not know whether he was aware 
of this, but there was an article in the New York Times on another 
matter that relates to my friend's work here. And that is that under 
the Violence Against Women Act, the first arrest was made, and this is 
a man who crossed State lines to beat his wife. It is a matter of the 
work of my friend, Senator Biden, who, for--I do not know how long--6 
years, fought to get the Violence Against Women Act into law. Proudly, 
I was the House author when I was there in the House and lived to see 
the day when it became law here in the Senate.
  The reason I bring that up is my friend is a pragmatist. He sees a 
problem and he solves it. He sticks with it. But my friend from 
Delaware, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, is also 
somebody who works beautifully with the other side. Senator Hatch 
worked with him on the Violence Against Women Act, and, in the end, we 
had everybody together. When my friend, Senator Biden, stands on this 
floor and says he does not understand why there is a problem with this 
on the other side, I think that carries a lot of weight.
  Frankly, I say to my friend, I wish we could just have a vote up or 
down on this amendment. I think it is common sense. We have 45 police 
chiefs from 24 States who have endorsed this. We have the Fraternal 
Order of Police.
  It may be that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend 
from Utah, may wish to lay this aside. We will take a look at it. I 
certainly hope that the remarks of the Senator from Delaware will be 
heard by both sides of the aisle, because this is a commonsense 
amendment. We should not be wasting a lot of time. We should do this in 
a bipartisan way.
  Frankly, it directly relates to Oklahoma City. It directly relates. 
If we find out that those terrorists made that bomb a year earlier, it 
would bring the statute down to 2 years, I say to my friend. It is a 
very serious amendment. It is directly related to Oklahoma City. I want 
to thank my friend so much. I yield back.
  Mr. BIDEN. Let me conclude, Mr. President, because again, it is a 
little bit like when we first raised the issue of taggants. There was 
initially--because a lot of people did not understand it--a lot of 
resistance.
  Yesterday, we overwhelmingly passed it because we talked about it. I 
am sincerely hopeful that as the staff of Senators who were otherwise 
occupied now in committee hearings and may not be able to hear this 
themselves will understand that this does not have to do with guns. It 
has to do with equity.
  A person convicted, as I indicated earlier, of impersonating a 
Federal employee can get up to a 3-year sentence, while a person 
convicted under the National Firearms Act can receive up to 10 years in 
prison. [[Page S7728]] 
  One has to wonder why a statute of limitations is shorter for the 
great offense and longer for the shorter offense. It does not seem to 
make sense.
  Again, although I cannot and do not speak for the NRA, it seems to me 
on its face this is totally consistent with the philosophy that the NRA 
has adopted relative to gun offenses.
  That is, when the law is violated relating to guns and/or explosives, 
that person should be punished severely. One of the things that we all 
know, in tracking these cases, is the police need time.
  It is totally consistent with the way we have dealt with other crimes 
and totally consistent with the philosophy on the left and the right, 
it seems to me, to just merely standardize the statute of limitations 
for these very serious offenses.
  I hope, if we are prepared to vote on this, or whatever decision the 
Senator from California makes, I hope the Senator sticks to her guns 
here. I am convinced if people understand what the Senator is 
attempting to do and depoliticize it here and just look at the facts, 
the facts are it makes no sense not to give the police what they want, 
the additional 2 years to be able to track and apprehend people who 
violate only the most serious of the laws relating to firearms and 
explosives.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee 
has been waiting to speak. I need to take just 1 minute. I think I have 
worked this out with the distinguished Senator from California.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer amendment numbered 1214 be 
laid aside until 2:15 in order for the Senate to consider other 
amendments, and that no amendments dealing with the same issue as the 
Boxer amendment be in order prior to 2:15 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say, with regard to the 
Senator's amendment, that there is a lot of concern because 40 percent 
of the people in this country are afraid of their Government.
  If we extend a statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years, there is an 
awful lot of worry that official prosecutors will dangle and dangle the 
accused for the full 5 years until they indict them, the day before the 
5 years expires. We have seen it happen before.
  Extending the statute of limitations is not a simple little gesture. 
It is important. I understand the sincerity of the distinguished 
Senator from California, and there are a number of other issues, too.
  For instance, I think it is important to answer questions. How many 
cases in the past decade have failed to be prosecuted because of the 
statute of limitations for violation of the firearms provisions? What 
were the reasons for the failure to prosecute the alleged NFA firearms 
violations within the 3-year statute of limitations? How many NFA 
firearms violators have been prosecuted in the last decade? How many 
NFA firearms charges were dropped or reduced by plea bargaining? Has 
the BATF stated in congressional testimony, or anywhere, that the 3-
year statute of limitations for firearms violations has been a 
significant problem? Out of all the cases prosecuted for NFA firearms 
violations in the last 5 years, what is the percentage of the 
convictions obtained?
  Now, I ask unanimous consent that the rest of these questions be 
printed in the Record at this point. It may be important for the 
distinguished Senator from California to answer some of these 
questions, and I will give her a copy of this so she and her staff can 
look it over.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  National Firearms Act Violations--Statute of Limitations--Proposed 
                                Increase

       1. How many cases in the last decade have failed to be 
     prosecuted because of the three year statute of limitations 
     of violations of the firearms provisions NFA?
       2. What were the reasons for the failure to prosecute the 
     alleged NFA firearm violations within the three year statute 
     of limitations?
       3. How many NFA firearms violators have been prosecuted in 
     the last decade?
       4. How many NFA firearms charges were dropped or were 
     reduced by a plea bargain?
       5. Has the BATF stated in Congressional testimony, or 
     anywhere, that the three year statute of limitations for 
     firearms violations has been a significant problem for them?
       6. Out of all the cases prosecuted for NFA firearms 
     violations in the last five years, what is the percentage of 
     convictions obtained?
       7. In the last five years, what percentage of convicted 
     felon for NFA firearm violations are currently serving their 
     sentences in a federal penal institution?
       8. Isn't it a fact that under Title I of the Gun Control 
     Act, which is often the subject of indictments also alleging 
     NFA offenses, there is a five year statute of limitations? 
     And isn't also a fact that the three year statute of 
     limitations is overlooked at times by counsel and others? 
     Isn't it true that is the real reason for any cases lost 
     under the NFA statute of limitations is because of human 
     error?
       9. If a potential case is brought to the BATF or other 
     relevant federal officials attention's, why would a three 
     year statute of limitations not be sufficient time to bring 
     an indictment against the alleged violator? Shouldn't the 
     punishment for such a crime be swift and effective?
       10. After the passage of over three years, evidence becomes 
     stale and witnesses are lost; a defendant is at a great 
     disadvantage to defend himself against charges, what, in 
     terms of fairness, would mandate an extension of that time 
     for prosecutions of NFA firearms violations for another two 
     years?
                           Amendment No. 1228

       (Purpose: To clarify the procedures for deporting aliens)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Abraham, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1228.

   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 as follows:

       On p. 36, line 16, strike from ``to prepare a defense'' 
     through the word ``imminent'' on p. 37, line 12, and insert 
     in its place the following: ``substantially the same ability 
     to make his defense as would disclosure of the classified 
     information.
       ``(C) The Attorney General shall cause to be delivered to 
     the alien a copy of the unclassified summary approved under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) If the written unclassified summary is not approved 
     by the court, the Department of Justice shall be afforded 
     reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiencies identified 
     by the court and submit a revised unclassified summary.
       ``(E) If the revised unclassified summary is not approved 
     by the court, the special removal hearing shall be terminated 
     unless the court, after reviewing the classified information 
     in camera and ex parte issues findings that--
       ``(i) the alien's continued presence in the U.S. poses as 
     reasonable likelihood of causing
       ``(I) serious and irreparable harm to the national 
     security; or
       ``(II) death or serious bodily injury to any person; and
       ``(ii) provision of either the classified information or an 
     unclassified summary that meets the standard set out in (B) 
     poses a reasonable likelihood of causing
       ``(I) serious and irreparable harm to the national 
     security; or
       ``(II) death or serious bodily injury to any person; and
       ``(iii) the unclassified summary prepared by the Department 
     of Justice is adequate to allow the alien to prepare a 
     defense.
       ``(F) If the Court makes these findings, the special 
     removal hearing shall continue, and the Attorney General 
     shall cause to be delivered to the alien a copy of the 
     unclassified summary together with a statement that it meets 
     the standard set forth in paragraph (E) rather than the one 
     set forth in paragraph (C).
       ``(G) If the Court concludes that the unclassified summary 
     does not meet the standard set forth in paragraph (E), the 
     special removal hearing shall be terminated unless the court, 
     after reviewing the classified information in camera and ex 
     parte finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
       ``(i) the alien's continued presence in the United States--
       ``(I) would cause serious and irreparable harm to the 
     national security; or
       ``(II) would likely cause ''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be set aside. I understand Senator Leahy is coming to the floor with an 
amendment to take up immediately following, hopefully, Senator 
Thompson's remarks.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Tennessee is 
waiting, if he allows me 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I listened to my friend raise questions 
about the [[Page S7729]] amendment. My response is that all the 
questions he raised are totally irrelevant.
  Whether or not 40 percent of the American people are afraid of their 
Government, the idea is that who they should be afraid of is anybody 
walking around with a bomb, grenade, rocket launcher, or a silencer on 
their gun, or a machine gun. That is who they should be afraid of. 
Whether there have been prosecutions or not is totally unrelated to 
whether or not the statute of limitations should be 3 or 5 years. And 
the notion of dangling over their head the prospect of prosecution--I 
have zero sympathy for anyone, whether they are a Mafia don, whether 
they are a rapist, or whether they are someone walking around with a 
rocket-propelled device, I could give a darn about their concern, if 
they violate the law. The question is did they violate it or did they 
not? They will have a chance to prove it in court. The police should 
have a chance to bring them to court.
  With all due respect, I think his questions raised are irrelevant. I 
hope my friend from California will not bother to answer them, but that 
is the right of the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following my remarks here the distinguished Senator from Tennessee be 
permitted to deliver his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not disagree with Senator Biden. When 
you have terrorists and bomb throwers and rocket launchers and things 
like that--I do not have any sympathy for them either. But both he and 
I have been in court before as practicing attorneys where the Federal 
Government has brought unjust actions against people and dangled them 
for the full extent of the statute of limitations. We won those cases, 
but it was not easy and it ruined lives in the process. I have seen 
that happen. That is what I am concerned about and that is what I think 
many people are concerned about.
  I am not against extending statutes of limitations when they are 
justified. Maybe in this case they are. I may very well consider voting 
for this amendment or accepting it. But I want to make sure everybody 
understands it is not quite as simple as we sometimes paint it on the 
floor, when 40 percent of the people in this country are afraid of 
their Government. One reason is because they have seen some unjust 
prosecutions, criminal prosecutions, that is. That is a matter of 
concern to me and I think it is to everybody who is worried about what 
people think in this country.


                           Amendment No. 1229

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning officials of 
       organizations that refuse to renounce the use of violence)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for and on 
behalf of Mr. Brown and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Brown proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1229.

  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 as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section--

     ``SEC.   . TERRORISM AND THE PEACE PROCESS IN NORTHERN 
                   IRELAND.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) All parties involved in the peace process should 
     renounce the use of violence and refrain from employing 
     terrorist tactics, including punishment beatings;
       (2) The United States should take no action that supports 
     those who use international terrorism as a means of 
     furthering their ends in the peace process in northern 
     Ireland;
       (3) United States policy should not discourage any 
     agreement reached in northern Ireland that is ratified by a 
     democratic referendum.
       (b) Report.--Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 is amended by adding the following--

     ``SEC. 620G. REPORT ON NORTHERN IRELAND.

       The President shall provide a biannual report beginning 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress on--
       (1) The renunciation of violence and steps taken toward 
     disarmament by all parties in the northern Ireland peace 
     process;
       (2) Any terrorist incidents in northern Ireland in the 
     intervening six months, their perpetrators, actions taken by 
     the United States to denounce the acts of violence, United 
     States efforts to assist in the detention and arrest of these 
     terrorists and U.S. efforts to arrest or detain any elements 
     that have provided them direct or indirect support;
       (3) Fundraising in the United States by the Irish 
     Republican Army, Sinn Fein or any associated organization and 
     whether any of these funds have been used to support 
     international terrorist activities.''

  Mr. HATCH. I also unanimous consent this amendment be set aside so we 
can have another amendment called up, presumably by Senator Leahy, who 
I understand is coming to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order the Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that he yield me 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. The logic of the argument of my friend from Utah would be 
to reduce the statute of limitations for embezzlement from 5 to 3 
years, reduce the statute of limitations for assault from 5 to 3 years, 
to reduce the statute of limitations for most crimes from 5 to 3 years. 
I would stand ready to debate him if he wishes to do that.
  I yield the floor and thank my friend from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we all appreciate the FBI's fine job in 
investigating the Oklahoma City bombing and tracking down the 
perpetrators. But all the resources that we vote for the FBI, and all 
the work that the Marshals Services performs to protect people in 
Federal buildings, are meaningless if the courts will not put 
terrorists and other criminals in jail for a long time. And those 
resources also will be wasted if the Justice Department fails to punish 
those who are guilty.
  The bill before us will strengthen Federal efforts against terrorism. 
However, the American people should know that we are acting 
thoughtfully, and are not overreacting. For instance, the bill before 
us reflects a conscious decision not to pass the administration's 
proposals to permit roving telephone wiretaps and to significantly 
increase the role of the military in domestic law enforcement. Before 
this administration asks for increased authority that could infringe 
the civil liberties of innocent citizens, it should exercise its 
already significant authority to punish terrorists.
  President Clinton has stated that those who bomb Federal buildings 
are evil cowards. And he has said that it is wrong for terrorists to 
try to kill those who lawfully arrest them. Yet, the record of the use 
of the current authority of the President's Justice Department to fight 
terrorism fails to match the President's rhetoric.
  Rodney Hamrick is a terrorist. He has been convicted of threatening 
the life of the President, manufacturing an incendiary device while in 
prison, and making bomb threats against Federal courthouses in 
Washington and in Elkins, WV. While facing prosecution for threatening 
to kill the judge who sentenced him, Hamrick built a bomb from 
materials available at the jail: A 9-volt battery, steel wires, and 
cigarette lighters. He wrapped the bomb in aluminum and put it in an 
envelope between a pad and a piece of cardboard. The bomb was designed 
to detonate when the pad was removed from the envelope. If fully 
effective, the bomb would have produced a 1000-degree fireball up to 3 
feet in diameter.
  Hamrick mailed the bomb to the Federal building where the U.S. 
attorney responsible for prosecuting him worked. When the U.S. attorney 
opened the envelope, the bomb fortunately did not explode. The U.S. 
attorney, recognizing the homemade bomb, fled his office. The Marshals 
Service, FBI, and ATF were called and an Army bomb disposal expert was 
flow to the scene. He ordered the evacuation of the entire wing of the 
Federal building. While wearing a full-body kevlar bomb suit, he 
dismantled the bomb at a distance of 30 feet and a flight of stairs 
away. Hamrick was convicted of a number of [[Page S7730]] charges 
related to using a deadly or dangerous weapon and destructive device in 
perpetrating his attempted murder of a Federal official.
  On appeal, a three-judge panel of the fourth circuit held
   that a dysfunctional bomb was neither a ``dangerous or deadly 
weapon'' nor a ``destructive device.'' The court made this ruling 
despite a unanimous 1986 Supreme Court decision in a bank robbery case 
that an unloaded gun is a ``dangerous or deadly weapon.'' While the 
Supreme Court had held that a gun is an article that is typically and 
characteristically dangerous and instills fear in the average citizen, 
the panel rules that a dysfunctional bomb is not characteristically 
dangerous and a combination of wires and a lighter cannot instill fear. 
It overturned Hamrick's convictions on these counts.

  When the Government loses a court case, the Solicitor General 
determines whether to appeal the decision. Here was a case where an 
evil coward had tried to bomb a Federal building and kill an important 
Federal official who had sought to prosecute a terrorist. The facts are 
extremely similar to the way the President described the Oklahoma City 
bombing. Additionally, a controlling Supreme Court decision suggested 
that the fourth circuit panel had decided the case incorrectly.
  What did the Clinton Justice Department do? Nothing. As the fourth 
circuit later wrote:

       The United States, at the direction of the Solicitor 
     General, did not petition either for rehearing or rehearing 
     en banc of the panel's reversal of Hamrick's convictions and 
     sentences on these courts.

  Nor did the Justice Department file a petition with the Supreme Court 
to hear the case. Instead, in an unusual move, the full fourth
 circuit decided on its own to rehear the case. The full court found 
that the bomb was a ``dangerous or deadly weapon'' and affirmed 
Hamrick's convictions.

  Mr. President, a letter bomb mailed to a Federal building is a 
dangerous or deadly weapon and a destructive device. That is just 
common sense. But where was the administration when the decision was 
made to accept the overturning of the criminal charges against this 
terrorist? Where was the Justice Department, and the Attorney General? 
They need to be held accountable for a decision that shows insufficient 
regard for public safety.
  And what message does the Justice Department's acquiescence send to 
Federal law enforcement officials on the line every day, or to Federal 
prosecutors? Before this administration starts talking tough on 
terrorism, and about how tough it will act in imposing burdens such as 
infiltration, roving wiretaps, and searches on law-abiding citizens, it 
should explain why it has failed to take steps to raise the heat on 
terrorists.
  Consider how the ruling the Justice Department accepted would affect 
law enforcement. If the original panel decision were the law, bombs 
that could not operate would not be dangerous or deadly weapons or 
destructive devices. Now consider how this approach would have applied 
to the shockingly similar bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma 
City.
 Suppose that the bomber had been arrested for speeding while driving 
the Ryder truck on the way into Oklahoma City instead of driving the 
car on the way out. The police would have seen tons of fertilizer and 
fuel oil in the truck. But the bomber could not have been prosecuted 
for transporting a destructive device or possessing a deadly or 
dangerous weapon because the bomb was not yet rigged to explode.

  That the Justice Department was willing to accept a ruling that would 
yield such an astounding result is absolutely unacceptable.
  Mr. President, even the defendant in the Hamrick case did not argue 
that the bomb was not a deadly or dangerous weapon in light of the 
Supreme Court decision. The Clinton administration was willing to 
accept a judicial decision that was softer on terrorism than the 
terrorist himself. The American people are owed an explanation, an 
apology, and proof that steps have been taken to ensure that the 
serious mistakes the Justice Department made in Mr. Hamrick's case will 
not be permitted to happen again. Otherwise, the Clinton administration 
will have a difficult time credibly fighting terrorism.
  I support this legislation, which will strike a proper balance in 
habeas corpus and will restore the FBI to its pre-Clinton 
administration hiring levels. But another reason to support the bill is 
language in section 626, which, in light of the argument that the 
administration accepted in Hamrick, will clarify that a ``deadly or 
dangerous weapon'' includes ``a weapon intended to cause death or 
danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective or missing 
component.'' This language is truly a clarification. Section 111(b) of 
the Federal Criminal Code always covered assaults on Federal officers 
with deadly or dangerous weapons, even if by happenstance those weapons 
misfired, notwithstanding the Clinton administration's position in the 
Hamrick case. No defendant who has committed an assault on a Federal 
officer with a defective weapon may use this language to argue that 
such conduct was legal prior to the date of the passage of this bill. 
We merely want to prevent other courts from following the fourth 
circuit's original decision, and we want to prevent the administration 
from continuing to argue in future cases that a defective bomb is not a 
deadly or dangerous weapon. I commend Senators Dole and Hatch for 
including this language in their substitute amendment. And I hope that 
the bill sends a message to the administration to apply common sense to 
prosecute terrorists like Rodney Hamrick to the fullest extent of 
existing law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has a right to offer 
an amendment.


                Amendment No. 1238 to Amendment No. 1199

 (Purpose: To provide assistance and compensation for U.S. victims of 
                terrorist acts, and for other purposes)

  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair, and, in a moment, I will offer my 
amendment.
  Let me just mention, Mr. President, we need to look at what happens 
when we go after terrorists. As a former prosecutor, I feel that if 
somebody commits a crime, especially serious crimes like this, we ought 
to be able to have every possible way of going after that person. They 
ought to be prosecuted. They ought to be brought to justice. They ought 
to pay for their crime.
  But also as a former prosecutor, I have seen so often the person who 
is neglected is the victim. We can spend sometimes millions of dollars 
going after somebody who has perpetrated a crime, especially a heinous 
crime, but nothing is done to help the victim.
  We saw in the continuing tragedy of the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 
over Lockerbie, Scotland, the United States Government had no authority 
to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that heinous 
crime. It was the same thing with the victims of the Achille Lauro 
incident. There has been no authority in the law for the Department of 
Justice to respond to these victims through our crime victims programs. 
I think it is wrong, and it can be remedied. The amendment I am about 
to offer would do that.
  We had a report to the Congress last summer from the Office for 
Victims of Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice that identified a 
related problem. Both the ABA and the State Department have commented 
on their concern. They said that crime victims' compensation benefits 
should be provided to U.S. citizens who have been victimized in another 
country.
  If you are a U.S. citizen and you get hit during a terrorist attack 
in another country, because you are a U.S. citizen, you ought to at 
least have the benefit of programs that are already in place in this 
country. Our citizens are deserving of the same protection whether they 
are hit by terrorists in Washington, DC, or hit by terrorists in 
Beirut, Lebanon.
  The Victims of Terrorism Act, which I am about to offer as an 
amendment, 
[[Page S7731]] provides authority to respond to the consequences of 
violent extremism abroad and also here at home.
  We have been shielded from much of the terrorism perpetrated abroad. 
We see buildings blown up, cars bombed, people shot, leaders 
assassinated in other parts of the world. Now we are witnessing similar 
incidents here at home. We see what happened at the World Trade Center 
in New York, we see assaults on the White House, the Oklahoma City 
situation.
  The Victims of Terrorism Act would add to the Victims of Crime Act 
provisions for supplemental grants to States to provide emergency 
relief in the wake of a violent incident that might otherwise overwhelm 
a State. I look at the tremendous job the people of Oklahoma and the 
local and State authorities did, but they were overwhelmed. This is the 
time when they need help from all of us as citizens. Certainly, if 
something this terrible happened in my own State of Vermont, the 
sympathy would be there, and I know Vermonters well enough to know all 
Vermonters would rally, but there would be no way we could handle all 
the problems.
  I want to commend the National Organization for Victims Assistance 
and all the volunteers and others who have been so critical in 
providing timely assistance to the Oklahoma City bombing victims. We 
should acknowledge their heroic activities. My amendment would allow 
them to do more.
  Mr. President, I send to the desk the Victims of Terrorism Act, an 
amendment I propose to the amendment proposed by Mr. Dole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1238 to amendment No. 1199.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 160, after line 19, insert the following:

                   TITLE X--VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ACT

     SEC. 1001. TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Victims of Terrorism Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 1002. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND COMPENSATION 
                   TO VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.

       The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 1404A the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1404B. COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF 
                   TERRORISM OR MASS VIOLENCE.

       ``(a) Victims of Acts of Terrorism Outside the United 
     States.--The Director may make supplemental grants to States 
     to provide compensation and assistance to the residents of 
     such States who, while outside the territorial boundaries of 
     the United States, are victims of a terrorist act or mass 
     violence and are not persons eligible for compensation under 
     title VIII of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and 
     Antiterrorism Act of 1986.
       ``(b) Victims of Domestic Terrorism.--The Director may make 
     supplemental grants to States for eligible crime victim 
     compensation and assistance programs to provide emergency 
     relief, including crisis response efforts, assistance, 
     training, and technical assistance, for the benefit of 
     victims of terrorist acts or mass violence occurring within 
     the United States and may provide funding to United States 
     Attorneys' Offices for use in coordination with State victims 
     compensation and assistance efforts in providing emergency 
     relief.''.
     SEC. 1003. FUNDING OF COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS 
                   OF TERRORISM, MASS VIOLENCE, AND CRIME.

       Section 1402(d)(4) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601(d)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) If the sums available in the Fund are sufficient 
     to fully provide grants to the States pursuant to section 
     1403(a)(1), the Director may retain any portion of the Fund 
     that was deposited during a fiscal year that was in excess of 
     110 percent of the total amount deposited in the Fund during 
     the preceding fiscal year as an emergency reserve. Such 
     reserve shall not exceed $50,000,000.
       ``(B) The emergency reserve may be used for supplemental 
     grants under section 1404B and to supplement the funds 
     available to provide grants to States for compensation and 
     assistance in accordance with section 1403 and 1404 in years 
     in which supplemental grants are needed.''.

     SEC. 1004. CRIME VICTIMS FUND AMENDMENTS.

       ``(a) Unobligated Funds.--Section 1402 of the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection'' and 
     inserting ``chapter''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Amounts Awarded and Unspent.--Any amount awarded as 
     part of a grant under this chapter that remains unspent at 
     the end of a fiscal year in which the grant is made may be 
     expended for the purpose for which the grant is made at any 
     time during the 2 succeeding fiscal years, at the end of 
     which period, any remaining unobligated sums shall be 
     returned to the Fund.''.
       (b) Base Amount.--Section 1404(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     10603(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `base amount' 
     means--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), $500,000; and
       ``(B) for the territories of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     Guam, American Samoa, and Palau, $200,000.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the bomb exploded outside the Murrah 
Federal Building in Oklahoma City last month, my thoughts and prayers 
and I suspect that those of all Americans turned immediately to the 
victims of this horrendous act. The terrorism legislation that has been 
introduced for our consideration, however, is silent with respect to 
victims of terrorism.
  This amendment is intended to fill that void left in this bill and 
include attention to those who suffer immediately and directly from 
violent extremism. It is my desire that this amendment, to include 
attention to victims of terrorism in the bill, will provide a series of 
changes in our growing body of law recognizing the rights and needs of 
victims of crime on which we can quickly reach agreement.
  No one will deny that a comprehensive approach to terrorism demands 
attention to the victims of terrorism. That is what this amendment will 
provide.
  The amendment helps correct a gap in the law for residents of the 
United States who are victims of terrorism that occurs outside the 
borders of the United States and who are not in the military, civil 
service or civilians in the service of the United States and, 
therefore, not eligible for benefits in accordance with the Omnibus 
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986.
  Thus, this amendment, the Victims of Terrorism Act, adds to the 
Victims of Crime Act provisions that authorize supplemental grants to 
the States to provide compensation and assistance for residents of such 
States who are victims of terrorism or mass violence while overseas.
  One of the continuing tragedies of the downing of Pan Am flight 103 
over Lockerbie, Scotland, is that the United States Government had no 
authority to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that 
heinous crime. Likewise, the U.S. victims of the Achille Lauro incident 
could not be given aid. There has simply been no authority in our law 
for the Department of Justice to respond to these victims through our 
crime victims' programs. This is wrong and will be remedied by this 
amendment.
  In its report to Congress last summer, the Office for Victims of 
Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice identified a related problem.
 both the ABA and the State Department have commented on their concern 
and their desire that crime victims compensation benefits be provided 
to U.S. citizens victimized in other countries. This is an important 
step in that direction.

  Certainly U.S. victims of terrorism overseas are deserving of our 
support and assistance.
  In addition, this Victims of Terrorism Act provides authority to 
respond to the consequences of violent extremism here at home. We in 
this country have been shielded from much of the terrorism perpetrated 
abroad. That sense of security has been shaken by the bombing in 
Oklahoma City, the destruction at the World Trade Center in New York, 
and the assaults upon the White House.
  The Victims of Terrorism Act adds to the Victims of Crime Act 
provisions for supplemental grants to States to provide emergency 
relief in the wake of an act of terrorism or mass violence that might 
otherwise overwhelm the resources of a State's crime victims 
compensation program and crime victims assistance services.
  We all applaud the efforts of our Office for Victims of Crime in the 
wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. It helped to organize a crisis 
response team of specially trained professionals who were dispatched 
within hours to the disaster. I know that the National Organization for 
Victims Assistance was critical in providing timely assistance to 
Oklahoma City victims and 
[[Page S7732]] thank and acknowledge their heroic efforts.
  This amendment will allow them to do more. I want to thank the 
dedicated officials at the Department of Justice Office for Victims of 
Crime, John Stein of the National Organization for Victims Assistance, 
Dan Eddy of the National Association of Crime Victims Compensation 
Boards, and David Beatty of the National Victim Center for their help, 
counsel, and suggestions in connection with this amendment.
  The amendment builds on the crime victims assistance programs of the 
States and Federal victims assistance provided through our U.S. 
attorney's offices to furnish emergency assistance in times that demand 
it. I propose that we allow the Attorney General and the Office for 
Victims of Crime, additional flexibility in its targeting of resources 
to victims of terrorism, mass violence, and the trauma and devastation 
that they cause.
  The Victims of Terrorism Act's supplemental grants to provide 
compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism and mass violence 
are funded through an emergency reserve established as part of the 
crime victims fund. I do not intend for this emergency reserve to be 
established at the expense of our States' ongoing compensation and 
assistance programs. Indeed, funds are not available for the reserve 
until the full annual compensation grants are funded and the crime 
victims fund has received in excess of 110 percent of the amount 
deposited in the previous year so that assistance programs will be 
adequately funded, as well.
  The emergency reserve will also serve as a rainy day fund to 
supplement compensation and assistance grants to the States for years 
in which deposits to the crime victims fund are inadequate. There have 
been deep swings in the amount of funding deposited annually and, 
therefore, available for distribution. This emergency reserve will 
provide the Director with the means to even out what would otherwise be 
wide variations in annual grants and allow those providing these 
critical services some additional confidence that funding will be 
available even following a year of poor deposits.
  The emergency reserve's ceiling of $50 million is intended to allow 
confidence and the vital resources needed to take action to supplement 
grants in down years. In order to serve its intended purposes, the 
emergency reserve and, for that matter, the entire crime victims fund 
must be accorded respect and security. This is a trust fund that is 
dedicated to critical needs.
  I hope through the provisions of this act to provide some greater 
certainty to our State and local victim's assistance programs so that 
they can know that our commitment to victims programming will not wax 
and wane with events. Accordingly, the amendment would allow grants to 
be made for a 3-year cycle of programming, rather than the year of 
award plus one, which is the limit contained in current law. This 
change reflects the recommendation of the Office for Victims of Crime 
contained in its June 1994 report to Congress.
  Our State and local communities and community-based nonprofits cannot 
be kept on a string like a yoyo if they are to plan and implement 
victims' assistance and compensation programs.
 They need to be able to program and hire and have a sense of stability 
if these measures are to achieve their fullest potential.

  I know, for instance, that, in Vermont, Lori Hayes and Pat Hayes at 
the Vermont Center for Crime Victims Services; Judy Rex and the Vermont 
Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse; Karen Bradley from 
the Vermont Center for Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Abuse; and 
others, provide tremendous service under difficult conditions. Such 
dedicated individuals and organizations will be greatly aided by 
increasing their programming cycle by even 1 year. Three years has been 
a standard that has worked well in other settings.
  Unfortunately, even with the recently announced decreases in violent 
crime, it is certain that we will have too many crime victims who need 
assistance in the years ahead. While we have made progress over the 
last 15 years in recognizing crime victims' rights and providing much-
needed assistance, we still have more to do. It is in recognition of 
these needs and the additional authorities and scope being added to the 
Victims of Crime Act by this Victims of Terrorism Act that I include a 
provision to raise the base amount for small States from $200,000 to 
$500,000 for their assistance programs. This is funding that will be 
put to good use.
  I am proud to have played a role in passage of the Victims and 
Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, the 
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 and the victims provisions 
included in such measures as the Federal Courts Administration Act of 
1992 and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
  My greatest hope would be that the Victims of Terrorism Act, while 
improving our responsiveness to national tragedies, need never be 
invoked. My concern is that we have not seen the end to terrorism or 
mass violence and that its provisions will be important in our future.
  A number of our colleagues have great interest in crime victims 
legislation, including Senators Hatch, Biden, Ford, DeWine, Kyl, and 
McCain and I look forward to working with them on these important 
matters. In connection with this amendment I want to thank, in 
particular, Senators Hatch, Biden, and McCain for working with me on 
it.
  We can do more to see that victims of crime, including terrorism, are 
treated with dignity and assisted and compensated with Government help.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of 
support for this amendment from the National Organization for Victims 
Assistance, which outlines many of the its benefits.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             National Organization
                                            for Victim Assistance,
                                     Washington, DC, June 5, 1995.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I write to express the enthusiastic 
     support of the National Organization for Victim Assistance 
     for your proposed amendment to the anti-terrorism bill now 
     before the Senate--an amendment that would establish vitally 
     needed services for the victims of terrorism through the 
     structure of the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and its Crime 
     Victims Fund.
       Let me give you a sense of the need for such an emergency 
     service from our perspective:
       When we tried to assist the relatives of Americans held 
     hostage in Beruit, one service we tried to give them was the 
     wherewithal to make telephone calls to friends and family--a 
     healthy coping device which virtually every hostage family 
     uses extensively, often causing them financial hardship. We 
     found a charitable businessman who volunteered to organize 
     contributions to a free phone service for a designated member 
     of each family. Sadly, the contributions dried up before the 
     hostage crisis ended.
       We also tried to help the niece and nephew of Peter 
     Kilbourne return his body from the East Coast for burial in 
     his home state of California (the State Department being 
     authorized to transport the remains of the slain hostage only 
     to the nearest U.S. port of entry). Happily, we connected the 
     relatives to an imaginative victim advocate in Santa Clara 
     County, who persuaded the state victim compensation program 
     to underwrite the transportation and burial costs. 
     Unfortunately, few American victims of terrorism overseas 
     have such a connection to a victim advocate, and very few 
     compensation programs have the authority to assist its 
     citizens who are victimized beyond the borders of the United 
     States.
       And as the coordinator of NOVA's Crisis Response Team that 
     arrived in Oklahoma City the same day that its Federal 
     Building was bombed, I sensed immediately that which is now 
     being slowly documented--that those who had experienced 
     significant, immediate emotional crisis numbered in the 
     scores of thousands, that those at risk of experiencing 
     persistent crisis reactions are surely in the thousands, and 
     that those at risk of debilitating post-trauma stresses 
     number at least in the hundreds. NOVA's ongoing planning work 
     with just one institution--the city school system--shows us 
     that, whatever good has been done by our
      volunteer crisis counselors and their counterparts in 
     Oklahoma City, the need for caregiving services over the 
     next year or two far exceeds available resources, and that 
     full-time crisis counselors and post-trauma therapists 
     must be hired for the task if society is to perform the 
     same healing services for these victims as for victims of 
     other violent crimes.
       Your proposal to meet this need is not merely timely and 
     compassionate but inspired:
       It would rename the existing financial reserves in the 
     Crime Victims Fund by calling [[Page S7733]] them an 
     ``emergency reserve,'' which precisely describes both its 
     original purpose--to cover any shortfall in the Fund's 
     revenues in a given year--and to circumscribe the purposes 
     for which the new authorization is being created--a class of 
     emergencies for which there are no victim assistance 
     resources at present;
       It would raise additional revenues for the Fund to help 
     cover the new expenses;
       It would cover domestic acts of ``mass violence'' so that 
     one need not immediately ascertain the motives of a terror-
     inducing criminal before acting to assist the affected 
     community; and
       It would place on the Director of the Office for Victims of 
     Crime the task of devising appropriate regulations, 
     presumably in consultation with the State Department and 
     administrators of state victim assistance and compensation 
     programs, among others, so that the emergency authority can 
     be invoked quickly, frugally, and imaginatively.
       Let me add a final thought: in our ongoing work with 
     ``Operation Heartland'' in Oklahoma City--the cooperative 
     enterprise of city, county, state, and federal agencies to 
     ease the pains of thousands of victims of the Murrah Federal 
     Office Building bombing--we have seen just how the resources 
     of your amendment would be put to use--quickly and 
     effectively. The same is true of the monumental task that 
     will someday face city, county, and federal criminal justice 
     agencies, that is, how to meet their burdens of preserving 
     the victims' rights when prosecuting a crime which, by 
     design, produced thousands of anguished and grieving victims 
     of violence.
       For these reasons, we very much hope that your amendment 
     will enjoy bipartisan support and speedy enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John H. Stein,
                                                  Deputy Director.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor, who is seeking recognition. I 
will yield to him for whatever purpose he may need.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I wonder if we can defer further 
debate on his amendment, so that I can file a bill and make a speech on 
the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  Mr. HATCH. Senator Bennett is coming over as well. Maybe we can do it 
right after lunch.
  Mr. LEAHY. I also have an amendment somewhat related that I was going 
to offer on behalf of Senator McCain and myself. I will withhold doing 
that so that the Senators from Utah can offer their bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Why do you not call it up and then we will set it aside.


                Amendment No. 1240 to Amendment No. 1199

 (Purpose: To increase the special assessment for felonies and extend 
                       the period of obligation)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator McCain and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1240 to 
     amendment No. 1199.

  Mr. LEAHY. 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 as follows:
       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON CONVICTED PERSONS.

       (a) Increased Assessment.--Section 3013(a)(2) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$50'' and inserting 
     ``not less than $100''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$200'' and inserting 
     ``not less than $400''.

  Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment, which mirrors 
provisions contained in legislation previously introduced by the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], and provisions contained in the 
amendment I had filed to this bill.
  In 1984 when we established the crime victims fund to provide Federal 
assistance to State and local victims compensation and assistance 
efforts, we funded it with fines, penalties, and assessments from those 
convicted of Federal crime. The level of required contribution was set 
low; 10 years have past and it is high time to adjust the assessments.
  The amendment serves to double the assessments under the Victims of 
Crime Act against those convicted of Federal felonies. This should 
provide critical additional resources to assist all victims of crime, 
including those who are victims of terrorism or mass violence.
  I do not think that $100 is too much for those individuals convicted 
of a Federal felony to contribute to help crime victims.
  I do not think that $500 is too much to insist that corporations 
convicted of a Federal felony contribute to crime victims. The 
amendment would raise these to be the minimum level of assessment 
against those convicted of such crimes and provides judges with the 
discretion to assess higher levels when appropriate.
  In connection with these provisions, I acknowledge the work of our 
colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain]. I know that he 
has been actively seeking to raise these special assessments for some 
time and I am glad that we are able to join together in this effort. He 
deserves much credit for his ongoing efforts on behalf of crime 
victims.
  I look forward to our continuing to cooperate in additional efforts 
on behalf of victims of crime, terrorism, and mass destruction. We have 
much to do if we are to improve collections for the crime victims fund 
and if we are to augment the critical resources needed by our victims 
compensation and assistance programs. This is an amendment that will 
help provide additional resources for meeting critical needs.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch and Mr. Bennett pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 884 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________