[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7734-S7743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 COMPREHENSIVE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1214

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Boxer amendment, 
No. 1214.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. HATCH. Mr. President, after a lot of negotiations I am prepared 
to accept the amendment. I understand the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware will accept the amendment.
  So, at this point, if it is urged I will accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend. I know there were some 
who had some problems with the amendment, at least parts of the 
amendment. I just want to say to my friend, to me this is a very 
important amendment because it really does relate to the Oklahoma City 
incident and that is my major purpose here. If we have a 5-year statute 
of limitations so the police can catch someone who impersonates Smokey 
the Bear, we should have a 5-year statute
 to be able to close a case against people who would make a bomb and 
break other portions of this law.

  So I want to say to my friend that I am most appreciative. I know it 
was contentious on his side. I look forward to following this bill 
through and seeing this when the bill comes back from conference.
  Would it be in order to now ask for the amendment to be voted on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
California.
  The amendment (No. 1214) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is now amendment No. 1240 
offered by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Leahy].
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. I understand that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska 
is about to call up an amendment. So I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                Amendment No. 1208 to Amendment No. 1199

 (Purpose: To authorize funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
                 Firearms and the U.S. Secret Service)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment is set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1208 to amendment No. 1199.

  Mr. KERREY. 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 pending substitute 
     amendment No. 1199, insert the following:

     SEC.  . AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms, to augment counter-terrorism efforts--
       (1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       (4) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       (5) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       (b) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the activities of the United States Secret Service, to 
     augment White House security and expand Presidential 
     protection activities--
       (1) $62,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       (3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       (4) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       (5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator D'Amato of New York and Senator 
Mikulski of Maryland.
  The amendment that I am offering authorizes funding of $262 million 
over 5 years for the U.S. Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms. Of this, $100 million goes to BATF and $162 
million goes to the U.S. Secret Service.
  The substitute we are considering contains an authorization of $1.779 
billion from the violent crime reduction trust fund for the various law 
enforcement agencies. Over 5 years, it authorizes $1.226 billion for 
the FBI, $400 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration, and $100 
million for the U.S. attorneys, $25 million for INS, and $28 million 
for the U.S. Customs Service.
  I trust the evaluation of how allocations occur across various law 
enforcement agencies was done in a very thoughtful and deliberative 
fashion. However, I believe the exclusion of ATF and the Secret Service 
from the allocation of resources inside of this antiterrorism bill will 
impair Treasury's capacity to engage in antiterrorism efforts. Thus, I 
offer this amendment to authorize resources for both the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Secret Service.
  Since 1970, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been 
mandated to enforce the criminal and regulatory provisions of the 
Federal explosives law.
  ATF has regulatory oversight of the legal explosives industry in 
excess of 10,000 licensees and permittees. ATF personnel have unequaled 
experience in [[Page S7735]] identifying the postblast explosive 
devices, components, and logistics involved in investigating postblast 
crime scenes of any size.
  The fiscal year 1995 supplemental and rescissions conference report, 
just approved by this body, provides quarter-year funding for the 
hiring of 175 new agents, inspectors, and intelligence analysts for 
ATF, as requested by the administration.
  These positions will be used to form four new national response teams 
for the purpose of responding within 24 hours to assist State and local 
law enforcement and fire service personnel in on-site investigations in 
the event of an explosion or fire. Each team is composed of veteran 
special agents having postblast, fire cause and origin expertise, 
forensic chemist and explosive technology expertise. The 59 inspection 
and intelligence analyst positions will be devoted to the inspection 
and investigation of groups and/or individuals in violation of Federal 
explosives laws.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been much maligned 
over the years. Much of this criticism, in my view, has been 
unjustified. I am quick to point out, some of the criticism is 
justified. This is an agency, like virtually any other in Government, 
that has not been operated in a perfect fashion. Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms does not enact the laws related to guns, but is instead sworn 
to execute the laws which originate from this body, that is the U.S. 
Congress. In my opinion, if we do not like the laws, we ought to change 
them rather than taking, in this case, action that might make it 
difficult for ATF to carry out the intent of the law.
  On those occasions when mistakes may have been made in the execution 
of laws, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has undergone extensive 
independent review by a diverse group of respected professionals. It 
has taken its fair share of justified criticism and its fair share of 
justified praise as well.
  Despite ATF's contributions to cases of great notoriety, ATF rarely 
receives their due credit. The World Trade Center bombing serves as the 
most recent example. While that investigation was a massive joint law 
enforcement effort, it was an ATF agent's determination and ingenuity 
that resulted in the discovery of one of the most significant pieces of 
evidence in that tedious investigation, the vehicle ID number.
  ATF's contributions to the investigations of over 1,600 arson cases 
last year were not realized by the majority of the American people. 
Again, ATF just did its job.
  Turning to the Secret Service, Mr. President, the White House complex 
symbolizes the executive branch of Government. More than 1 million 
American citizens a year tour the White House, and tens of thousands of 
White House complex appointments are processed during that same period 
of time. With the recent closing of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular 
traffic, pedestrian traffic will increase above and beyond the 
thousands of people who view the White House and surrounding areas.
  The White House carries with it both national security and symbolic 
value which must be protected. Publicized threats of the White House 
complex in the past several years have caused us to be not just 
concerned about the safety of the President and the President's family, 
but also concerned about the executive branch personnel that very often 
operate inside the White House, as well as other individuals operating 
and doing business at the White House.
  The April 19 Oklahoma City tragedy served to heighten the collective 
awareness and is, in part, the catalyst to which the closing of 
Pennsylvania Avenue is generally attributed. I know from personal 
experience that what many people saw with the Oklahoma City bombing is 
the idea that it would be relatively easy now to take a different 
approach if they had a desire to attack the White House, attack the 
President, or attack other personnel. Thus, the closing of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, though it is, in my judgment, an appropriate action, it is just 
one step in trying to make sure we do all we can to protect this symbol 
of the United States of America and protect the people who work and do 
business in it.
  Consistent with the recommendations from a recently completed review 
of White House security, the amendment I am offering will authorize 
security enhancements at the White House to help the Secret Service 
ensure that the White House and the First Family are not at risk.
  Press reports I have seen since the Oklahoma City bombing indicate 
threats to the President have increased by 100 percent.
  The amendment I am offering as well, Mr. President, authorizes 
funding for the hiring of 250 additional positions for the Presidential 
protection division, uniformed division officers, countersniper teams, 
foot and vehicular patrols, canine officers, and intelligence and 
physical security specialists.
  In addition, it authorizes the purchase of technical security 
equipment and devices and will permit physical security structural 
enhancements around the White House complex.
  The Secret Service is responsible as well for the protection of 
foreign heads of state and Presidential candidates. This October, the 
U.N. General Assembly is projected to have its largest gathering of 
heads of states, including a Papal visit. All these will require 
increased Secret Service personnel.
  In approximately 7 months, the Secret Service will begin the year-
long task of protecting Presidential candidates. How can these 
challenges and responsibilities not be addressed in any discussion of 
terrorism?
  The Secret Service has for over 125 years been responsible for the 
integrity of our currency. Counterfeiting of U.S. currency has in 
recent years shifted dramatically from domestic to foreign production 
and trends point toward the distribution of high-quality counterfeit 
U.S. currency by terrorist organizations, as well as arms traffickers 
and drug dealers.
  Pursuing these investigations related to foreign production of 
counterfeit U.S. currency by such groups should also be a focus in 
counterterrorism legislation.
  The Secret Service possesses unique forensic capabilities relating to 
handwriting, fingerprinting, ink and paper, just to name a few. They 
have in the past and will continue in the future to provide these 
capabilities to assist the investigative efforts of other Federal, 
State, and local agencies. While I do not argue that the FBI holds much 
of the responsibility in combating terrorism, it seems to me the 
challenges and responsibility of Treasury law enforcement agencies have 
been overlooked.
  The bill we are considering is entitled the ``Comprehensive Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 1995,'' but I do not believe it can be comprehensive 
unless we include funding for both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms and the Secret Service.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the manager of the bill allowing me to 
offer the amendment at this particular time. I urge the adoption of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Libonati, a legislative fellow with the Appropriations Committee, be 
permitted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate 
on S. 735.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Senator Kerrey. This amendment will correct what I believe 
to be an oversight in the authorization for Federal law enforcement. 
The current antiterrorism bill, S. 735, while providing substantial 
funding for some Federal law enforcement entities, overlooked the 
responsibilities and jurisdictions of the U.S. Secret Service.
  The U.S. Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the 
President of the United States, the Vice President of the United 
States, and their families. The U.S. Secret Service is also responsible 
for protecting Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates as well as 
any head of state visiting the United States. This vast cross 
[[Page S7736]] section of political entities, that fall within the 
protective realm of the U.S. Secret Service, continues to attract the 
interest of numerous terrorist and antigovernment organizations. Due to 
the recent bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City, the 
air intrusion of the White House, and the several shootings directed at 
the White House, additional security measures have been instituted by 
the Secret Service, while the funding levels have remained the same. 
One of the most publicized and controversial security measures that was 
instituted was the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicular traffic. 
This, while being the most visible security enhancement was merely one 
of dozens that have been effected by the Secret Service without any 
increase in their funding.
  The Secret Service is in need of increased resources to cover 
expenses in several areas: First, an increased presence of U.S. Secret 
Service Uniform Division officers. These officers will reinforce the 
current patrol capabilities and insure greater safety not only for the 
President, employees of the White House complex, and visiting 
dignitaries, but for the thousands of citizens who visit the White 
House and our monuments on a daily basis. The Secret Service also needs 
to increase their personnel levels within their intelligence branch as 
well as their protective details. And finally, several of the physical 
and technological security features of the White House need to be 
upgraded to deal with the increased and organized threats emanating 
from these terrorist entities.
  The U.S. Secret Service has been recognized as the preeminent law 
enforcement agency in the world for its protective expertise. This 
funding will help insure that these capabilities are not diminished, 
and their vital mission is not impeded due to a lack of funding.
  Mr. KERREY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. KERREY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the distinguished chairman of the 
committee is, I guess, deciding how, when, and under what circumstances 
to respond to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, I just want 
to bring the Senate, and particularly the Democrats, up to date.
  I would like every Democrat who has an amendment to come to the floor 
as soon as they can or communicate to the Cloakroom whether or not they 
intend to go forward with their amendment and if we can enter into a 
time agreement on their amendment, if they insist on going forward.
  I will say, and I have been discussing this with the Republican 
manager of the bill, that we have narrowed the list of amendments even 
further and we have gotten time agreements on 80 percent of the 
amendments on the Democratic side that are left. The longest request 
for any time on an amendment is 2 hours. Most are in the range of 20 to 
30 minutes. So we are making significant progress.
  There are three Senators who are ready to move on amendments that 
have short time agreements. Senator Kennedy has agreed to a 30-minute 
time agreement on his first amendment; Senator Bradley, who is to go 
next if we can work that out, has agreed to, I believe it is a 20-
minute time agreement. This is being typed up now. But this is to give 
some people notice for planning purposes.
  Senator Bradley has agreed to 30 minutes on his amendment 
characterized as relating to cop-killer bullets. Senator Kennedy has 
agreed to 20 minutes on his amendment that is characterized as relating 
to multiple gun purchases; and Senator Lautenberg has agreed to 1 hour 
equally divided on his civilian marksmanship amendment.
  It is my hope that when we dispose of the Kerrey amendment, which I 
hope will occur very shortly; that we can agree to take up those 
amendments under such time agreement--I am not asking unanimous consent 
for that now; that is being checked in the Republican Cloakroom--and 
then I can assure my colleagues on the Democratic side, we have 
additional amendments we are prepared to go to with very short time 
limits. It is still my hope and expectation that we can finish this 
bill or come perilously close to finishing this bill tonight.
  In the meantime, while the Republican Cloakroom is determining 
whether or not such a unanimous-consent request would be in order for 
the next three amendments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to speak to my amendment 
rather than have a quorum call if it is agreeable.
  Mr. BIDEN. Fine. Mr. President, I think that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael 
Myers and Lauren Cohen, fellows in my office, be granted the privilege 
of the floor during the pendency of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                    assisting local law enforcement

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment is designed to assist law 
enforcement officials in tracking the incidence of multiple handgun 
purchases. The stockpiling of weapons is at the heart of the terrorist 
threat to the country, and this amendment is a needed step to help 
address the problem.
  Under current law, when an individual purchases more than one handgun 
in a 5-day period, the gun dealer from whom the weapons are purchased 
must submit a multiple handgun purchase form to Federal, State and 
local law enforcement agencies. The requirement for this notification 
to State and local police was included in the law as part of the Brady 
bill substitute proposed by the majority leader, Senator Dole. 
  Under this provision in current law, however, State and local police 
are required to destroy the records after 20 days. As a result, the 
notification system is largely useless to State and local authorities. 
In 20 days, it is impossible to detect the purchasing patterns which 
might indicate that particular individuals or groups are stockpiling 
weapons, amassing arsenals, or engaging in illegal guntrafficking.
  My amendment eliminates the requirement that these important records 
be destroyed. There is no reason to handicap the police by requiring 
them to destroy information that can help prevent or solve crimes, 
especially terrorist crimes. As under existing law, the information 
provided to the police will remain confidential and will be used only 
for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
  There are obvious law enforcement needs for this information, 
especially in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing and the disclosures 
that some militant groups have been acquiring weapons at an alarming 
rate. According to Daniel Welch, director of the Southern Poverty Law 
Center's Klanwatch, ``[t]here has been an arms race within the white 
supremacy movement as to who can stockpile the most weapons.'' In 
addition, some anti-Government militia groups are also racing to 
acquire weapons for the avowed purpose of engaging in combat with the 
Government of the United States.
  According to the Anti-Defamation League, ``[t]hese militia members 
are not talking about change from the ballot box alone, many are 
enamored of the prospect of change through bullets, explosives, and 
heavy armaments.''
  Recent law enforcement investigations demonstrate the extent to which 
militias are arming themselves:
  A decade ago, in 1985, FBI agents discovered a compound owned by the 
Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, a paramilitary 
survivalist group operating along the Missouri/Arkansas border. The 
group's literature demonstrated it to be strongly anti-Semitic, and its 
leaders believed they were preparing troops for the coming war through 
paramilitary training. In the raid, agents seized hundreds of weapons, 
bombs, an antitank rocket, and quantities of cyanide apparently 
intended to poison the water supply of a city.
  In 1993, law enforcement officials discovered at least 6 separate 
weapons arsenals and 13 separate explosives arsenals linked to militant 
extremist groups across the country.
  In July 1994, Federal authorities found 13 guns, homemade silencers, 
explosives, blasting caps, fuses, and hand grenades belonging to James 
Roy Mullins, the founder of an anti-Government militia group in 
Virginia. [[Page S7737]] 
  In September 1994, three members of the Michigan Militia were stopped 
by police for a routine traffic violation. Inside the car, police 
discovered three military assault rifles, three semi-automatic 
handguns, a revolver, 700 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition, and 
several knives and bayonets. All of the firearms were loaded. And 
handwritten notes found in the car indicated that the militia members 
were conducting surveillance of local police departments.
  Militia members have been shown on television marching with rifles, 
but they have not limited their arsenals to such weapons. According to 
the Treasury Department, anti-Government militias have acquired a wide 
array of weapons including .22 caliber, .45 caliber, and 9mm pistols, 
.357 revolvers, and a variety of military-style assault weapons.
  There are some who say that militias are harmless. Some ask why the 
Government should care if some citizens want to spend their weekends 
marching in the woods wearing camouflage fatigues as a hobby.
  The answer is that not all militias are harmless. The events in 
Oklahoma City and elsewhere has focused public attention on a small 
group of Americans who are convinced that the Federal Government is the 
enemy and who may be preparing to wage war against the Government. 
These groups pose a terrifying threat to Federal agents, Federal 
workers, and other law-abiding citizens. We cannot afford to ignore 
that threat.
  As a result of lax Federal gun laws, it is relatively easy for anti-
Government extremist groups to stockpile arsenals of massive 
destructive power. Many of the semiautomatic handguns and revolvers 
recovered from these extremists are legally available at gunshops and 
gun shows. We do not have Federal licensing or registration 
requirements in this country. It is perfectly legal for anyone except 
felons and the mentally ill to possess hundreds or thousands of guns.
  I believe we should have tougher, more sensible gun laws, but I do 
not seek to accomplish that goal on this bill. This amendment does not 
prohibit the manufacture or prohibit the manufacture or possession of 
any guns. It does not ration guns, as the NRA has falsely charged. 
Legitimate sportsmen and gun collectors have absolutely no reason to 
fear this amendment.
  It builds on the recordkeeping requirement so that local law 
enforcement agencies will not be required to destroy potentially useful 
records after 20 days. In light of recent events, this amendment is a 
reasonable step to permit the police to keep track of individuals or 
groups in a community who may be stockpiling weapons or engaging in 
illicit gun-trafficking.
  This amendment is a necessary measure in the battle against terrorism 
and I urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. President, this amendment is supported by 47 police chiefs, 
including the police chief of Oklahoma City, Sam Gonzales. And I have 
other letters of support.
  I ask unanimous consent that the names of the police chiefs be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                       Senate Office Building,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 1995.
       Dear Senator: 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 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, Indianaplis, 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 Lawrence Nowery, Rock Hill, SC.
       Chief Edmund Mosca, Old Saybrook, CT.
       Chief William Nolan, North Little Rock, AR.
       Chief David C. Milchan, Pinellas Park, FL.
       Chief Lockheed Reader, Puyallup, WA.
       Chief Peter L. Cranes W. Yarmouth, MA.
       Chief Daniel Colucci, Kennelton, NJ.
       Chief Gertrude Gogan, Bel Ridge, St. Louis, MO.
       Chief Reuben M. Greenberg, Charleston, SC.
       Chief Robert L. Johnson, Charleston, SC.
       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 Howard H. Tagomori, Wailuku, Maui, HI.
       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.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is interesting that there is the 
requirement in the legislation that, after 20 days, the records must be 
destroyed. All this amendment does is to vitiate that particular 
provision. It is not a requirement that they maintain them. All this 
does is eliminate the requirement that they must be destroyed. We have 
seen in many instances where our law enforcement people have been out-
gunned by various gangs and other groups in many of the cities of this 
country, which in many instances are free-fire zones. We have seen the 
whole pattern of multiweapon purchases. This is a very modest but 
important law enforcement tool needed to determine the stockpiling and 
the caching of various weapons.
  I will mention here an excellent letter of support from Paul Evans, 
our police commissioner in Boston.
  It says:

       I am writing to express support for your proposal to help 
     local police departments track multiple gun purchases. Like 
     many other cities in the Northeast, Boston is concerned about 
     interstate gun trafficking. For years now, an iron pipe has 
     existed on the east coast, with professional gun traffickers 
     buying large numbers of handguns, transporting them elsewhere 
     for illegal sale in States and communities with much tougher 
     gun laws.
       In 1993, a study of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
     Firearms found that 60 percent of the guns used in crimes in 
     Boston were purchased outside of Massachusetts.
       The multiple handgun sale notification form can be one of 
     the most potent weapons in the fight against the illegal gun 
     trade. Two years ago, as part of the Brady bill, Congress 
     required Federally licensed gun dealers to send a copy of the 
     multiple sale form to local law enforcement officials in the 
     hope that local law enforcement officials would be armed with 
     the knowledge that could assist them in identifying illegal 
     gun traders.

  We can remember from the debate on the Brady bill that there were 
those who said what we want to do is find out whether those particular 
individuals have committed a felony or violated the law. So let us 
shorten the time period that an individual or group has to wait, but 
let us give the information to the local law enforcement. And within 
that proposal is the requirement to destroy that information after 20 
days.
  What we are finding out is, in local law enforcement, as well as 
State law [[Page S7738]] enforcement, as well as others who have a 
responsibility in this area, that this requirement for the destruction 
of this information hinders their opportunity to make judgments about 
the growth of the illegal gun trade.
  I will continue with the Paul Evans letter.

       Congress, unfortunately, requires local police to destroy 
     those forms within 20 days. Many gun traffickers, in an 
     effort to avoid suspicion, made several multiple purchases 
     over the course of several days and weeks, rather than one 
     large purchase of firearms. Can the amendment eliminate this? 
     In this case, it would allow the Boston police to develop 
     proactive policies around this information.

  This is a viewpoint which is shared by the other police officials who 
support this amendment.
  Mr. President, it is a simple concept. It is a needed provision, and 
I hope that we might have acceptance of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we brought this bill to the floor, and it 
has taken a large effort to get it here. We have worked very hard with 
the administration. We have worked with Senator Biden and the Justice 
Department, and the vast majority of this bill is agreed to. There 
seems to be one major contentious issue--and I think we can resolve 
that by amendments one way or the other--and that happens to be the 
habeas corpus provision, which the President called for last night. The 
President has called for us to pass this bill. He has called for us to 
pass habeas corpus reform on this bill.
  A while back, he did not feel he wanted it on this bill, but last 
night he did call for it. It is the appropriate time to get it done.
  I am disappointed to say that we are in the middle of making this a 
gun control bill. I hate to say it, but we are going to have another 
opportunity on the crime bill when it comes to the floor of debating 
these gun issues. Why should we gum up the antiterrorism bill with a 
bunch of gun provisions?
  When it comes to addressing our Nation's crime problems, the liberals 
in Congress and the media have proposed gun control. When the Nation 
calls on us to get tough on criminals, the liberals drag out the 
carcass of gun control. The fact is that when the going got tough, the 
liberals would embrace gun control over tough reform. That is nothing 
new to us. What I find shocking here is that they would attempt to turn 
this bipartisan, antiterrorism bill into an antigun bill, or into a 
political document.
  We have worked hard to try to accommodate everybody on this bill. 
Frankly, I am amazed that some of my colleagues would use the tragic 
events of Oklahoma City to push totally unrelated politically motivated 
gun control legislation.
  I have worked long and hard to bring this bill to the floor, as I 
said. After the President's call for prompt action on meaningful 
terrorist legislation, we bypassed the normal committee process in 
order to ensure swift action. We still worked with Senator Biden, who 
has worked well on this bill, the Department of Justice, other members 
of the Judiciary Committee, and other Members of the Congress.
  We have incorporated almost all of President Clinton's legislative 
proposals. We have been in the front of efforts to provide assistance 
to the people of Oklahoma. I sought the counsel of the Oklahoma State 
attorney general, Drew Edmondson, who is a Democrat, who supports much 
of what we are doing here.
  In fact, I have praised President Clinton for his leadership and the 
effectiveness of his Department of Justice in handling these issues 
involved in this matter.
  In short, we endeavor to do what is right and the right thing in the 
wake of this atrocity at Oklahoma City. That is why I am so 
disappointed that all of a sudden we are tearing down the spirit of 
bipartisanship, and even though some of the amendments sound 
reasonable, they are not in the eyes of a number of people on both 
sides of the aisle. I think it is becoming too partisan. We have worked 
hard on this. We have worked hard to try to cast a tough antiterrorist 
bill that delivers most of what the President has called for.
  It appears that some here have spent the last several weeks again 
trying to fiddle with the explicit rights of the Constitution. While I 
was working to deliver the President his bill, some of the more liberal 
persuasion have been honing gun control designs they wished to wield in 
their ongoing onslaught against the second amendment rights of freedom, 
rights of honest, law-abiding citizens. There are two points of view on 
the second amendment. The distinguished Senator from Delaware shares 
one; I share the other.
  My colleagues may think they have a good political issue on these gun 
control issues, but I do not think they do. In the court of public 
opinion, gun control is a big loser. A new U.S. News & World Report 
poll shows 75 percent of all American voters believe that the 
Constitution guarantees them the right to own a gun. The poll found 
voters are less willing today, even after Oklahoma City, to accept 
restrictions on their constitutional rights in order to feel more 
secure.
  Rather than create schemes that are constitutionally questionable, 
this body should concentrate on the real measures that will limit 
terrorist atrocities. These measures are outlined in this bill in great 
detail.
  I have to say they should not be part of an attempt to impose 
restrictions on second amendment rights. We can agree and disagree on 
what those second amendment rights are. I tried to avoid this becoming 
a gun fight as much as I possibly could, in the whole process, from 
committee to the floor and on the floor.
  But now we have a series of amendments that are nothing more than 
amendments to try to bring up the whole gun issue again on something 
that needs to be passed now, that the President has asked we pass now, 
that the majority leader has asked that we pass now, that the majority 
of Americans in this country would like to have passed.
  I am concerned about it. I think both sides know that we have 
problems on these issues. I hope that we can work on the things that we 
agree on and reserve the gunfights for the crime bill when it comes up 
and face them at that time.
  It will come up. There will certainly be a crime bill, either before 
the end of this year or next year. We are going to do everything we can 
to try to get that done.
  In that regard, I want to personally express appreciation to Senator 
Biden for his efforts in trying to work with me on this issue, trying 
to get time agreements on these amendments. He is representing his side 
in a very responsible way. I personally appreciate it. I want him to 
know that. Also, he has a great deal of knowledge in this area, and I 
just hope we can somehow or another break down the gun fights and get 
them out of here and start working about antiterrorism and the real 
issues in antiterrorism and reserve the gun fights until the crime 
bill. Then we will all face them at that time.
  I am prepared to do that at that time. I would like to get this bill 
passed by this evening, and even if we pass it in the Senate, we still 
have to go to the House of Representatives. We may have to have a 
conference. We will have to bring it back. So we still have a fairly 
detailed process to go through, regardless of what we do.
  I would like to get away from these gun control fights and do what we 
can on the antiterrorism bill, the way the President would like to have 
it done, and the way I think a vast majority of Senators believe it 
should be done and has been done.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Delaware.
   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it was clear to everyone when habeas 
corpus was added to this bill--which was never intended originally to 
be part of this bill--that a lot of issues that were contentious ought 
to be raised.
  We would be better off if we had no amendments on this. It was clear 
it was not going to happen. Everybody knew these amendments were 
coming. We got a unanimous-consent agreement limiting the number of 
amendments before we left to go home for our home period a couple weeks 
ago.
  I, quite frankly, sought the forbearance of my Democratic colleagues. 
There are only four amendments out of all the amendments that relate in 
any way to guns. Of those four amendments, the four sponsors of those 
[[Page S7739]] amendments have agreed to use a total of 190 minutes, an 
hour and a half.
  I have proposed a time agreement. I certainly hope the Republicans 
will not filibuster this bill. I hope they will not enter into the mode 
that I have been arguing with Democrats not to enter into.
  There are several Democrats who feel very strongly about habeas 
corpus. I have gotten an agreement that we will limit the amount of 
time on the five habeas corpus amendments that are out there. We have 
agreed on this side, even though several Members find the habeas corpus 
provision in this terrorism bill so repugnant that they may not be able 
to even vote for the bill, they have agreed to a time agreement, and 
they have agreed, in turn, therefore, not to filibuster or delay this 
bill.
  I hope that my Republican friends will not filibuster the bill, 
either. The way to deal with this is Senator Kennedy agreed to 20 
minutes equally divided on his amendment. He has made his statement. 
All we have to do is agree to 10 minutes in response to the statement 
and vote.
  We can do the same thing with regard to the Lautenberg amendment, the 
same thing with regard to the Kohl amendment, and the same thing with 
regard to the Bradley amendment. That is a totality of the amendments 
arguably related to firearms. One relates to cop killer bullets, one 
relates to multiple gun purchases and recordkeeping, one to the 
civilian marksmanship program, and one relates to the gun-free school 
zone which passed here almost unanimously. The Supreme Court concluded 
that it was not constitutional. It has been altered and reintroduced. 
That was overwhelmingly passed.
  Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I think the problem is we have a lot of nongermane 
amendments that do not belong in this bill, and there are people on 
this side who do not want them.
  Frankly, we have a cloture vote tomorrow morning, and nobody will 
filibuster it on this side. There is a feeling over here by some that 
we have a bunch of nongermane amendments that gum up this bill, and we 
may have to wait until cloture tomorrow on some of those amendments.
  Maybe we can move ahead on some that are germane, like the habeas 
amendments. They are germane. Habeas is a big part of this bill. We 
have kept all the gun fight amendments away on our side because we want 
to pass the President's terrorism bill. The President of the United 
States has called for habeas corpus in this bill. We are going to give 
it to him if we can. I believe we can.
  Now we are getting into extraneous matters that are not even germane 
to antiterrorism, are not germane to this bill, that should not be in 
this bill, that could be brought up on any number of following pieces 
of legislation and be germane, especially the crime bill, and the only 
purpose is to make this bill a more political exercise than it should 
be.
  I would like to worry a little bit more about these victims of the 
Oklahoma bombing and others who are potentially victims if we do not do 
something about this antiterrorism legislation as quickly as we can.
  Now, nobody wants to filibuster this bill, but by gosh, if we have to 
go to cloture to establish that we are not going to gum this bill up 
with a bunch of extraneous, nonbipartisan, nongermane, inappropriate 
amendments for this, then I do not know if I can stop that.
  I am willing to proceed on germane amendments. I suggest we spend the 
rest of the day working on all the germane amendments that we can, and 
go forward.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the way that translates to me is that the 
Republicans have concluded they are not going to allow Senators 
Kennedy, Lautenberg, Kohl, or Bradley to have a vote on their 
amendments.
  I understand that. I am a big boy. I understand how that works, if 
that is what they have decided to do. To suggest that we wait until 
cloture, by definition, cloture means these would not be in order.
  Now, every single bill that I know of that we ever pass through this 
place has nongermane amendments on it. I cannot think of one off the 
top of my head that does not have nongermane amendments on it. That is 
the practice.
 That is the practice. That is the rule. That is the way we proceed. 
And the theoretical reason for cloture is that people are taking too 
much time on this bill.

  I have time agreements on all these amendments. Before the next half-
hour is up, every Democratic amendment on any subject that is in this 
bill, we can get a time agreement on. We can settle this thing tonight. 
We can get this done.
  I thought the reason for cloture was worry on the part of the 
majority leader that we would never get to a final vote on this bill. I 
am telling you I can get a time agreement on all of the Democratic 
amendments. We can get to a vote on this bill tonight.
  But what I am being told here is, we can only get to a vote on this 
bill tonight if we only vote on the things the Republicans want to vote 
on. That is what this translates to.
  I understand that. I accept that. But let us understand what we are 
talking about here. This is not about delay. Democrats are willing to 
vote. We are willing to give time agreements. On this amendment, the 
Senator spoke for 10 minutes. Ask for 10 minutes and then vote. If they 
do not even want to respond--vote.
  We are ready to vote. This is not about delay. This is about the 
Republicans wishing to dictate what they will and will not allow to be 
offered as an amendment on a bill. I understand that. That is their 
right. I do not quarrel with that right. But let us make this thing 
real clear. That is what it is about.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Was the Senator familiar with the Hatch resolution for 
Senator Brown, dealing with terrorism and the peace process in Northern 
Ireland? It is a sense-of-the-Senate about the parties involved in the 
peace process in Northern Ireland and a report on Northern Ireland.
  Is the Senator familiar with the other provisions, even in the Hatch 
substitute, that talk about the conditions of eligibility for States 
being able to receive any funding under this? There is the requirement 
that, in terms of certain DNA analysis, testing be done by the Director 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It may be very worthwhile. But 
that is another measure that has been included. I could go on.
  I want to just ask the Senator if he would not agree with me that the 
issue of availability and the proliferation of military-style weapons 
that are available to the citizens is an active threat to the security 
of the American citizens? I will be glad to either spend some time in 
reviewing that, or I will be glad to follow the urgings of our ranking 
minority member and put those in the Record in order that we can move 
the process forward. But does not the Senator believe that the issue of 
the vast proliferation of weapons and their accumulation by various 
militia groups certainly has as much to do with the issue of potential 
danger to the American citizen's security as some of these other items 
I mentioned?
  Mr. BIDEN. If I can respond to the Senator's basic question, there 
are a number of items in this bill, amendments we have already 
accepted, amendments we have debated and voted on--some defeated, some 
not--that are nongermane in a technical sense, like the gun amendments 
are nongermane.
  What this is all about is they only want their nongermane amendments. 
They want to be able to dictate to all of us what we can and cannot 
offer on this amendment. Who is to say whether or not it is any more 
relevant to terrorism that you have a habeas corpus provision in this 
bill or whether it is more relevant to have a provision like the one 
the Senator from Massachusetts is suggesting? That is a judgment call. 
That is a judgment call.
  I think we should not delay in this. Again, I made a commitment to 
the leader, the Republican leader, that I would implore the Democrats 
to reduce their number of amendments and to enter into time agreements. 
We have done that. We have done that. So we can get to what his 
objective is, the telecommunications bill, tomorrow. We are able to do 
that. [[Page S7740]] 
  We have spent, now, an hour talking about whether or not we can 
proceed. We could have already disposed of my colleague's amendment and 
the Bradley amendment by now. They would be over, finished, either in 
the bill or out. And I have a feeling, unless I count incorrectly--
although I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts--I have a feeling 
he would be out if they let us vote on this just because of the way the 
votes have stacked up.
  But this is not about moving the bill along. This is about several 
Republican Senators wishing to filibuster indirectly this bill by not 
allowing my colleague to introduce his amendment, or the other three 
amendments, for which we have time agreements if they would agree.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, is the Senator aware that 
there are 47 police chiefs across the country who have urged the 
Senate, from their point of view, to accept this amendment that they 
believe is important, and also that the language, which is included, 
was basically the majority leader's language to have preservation of 
these records up to 20 days and then have them eliminated? The Senator 
is probably aware that it has been the judgment of law enforcement 
officials, now, that the 20 days is too short and the longer period of 
time would serve the security of American citizens. I wonder why we are 
not prepared to move forward. We could accept this amendment, I would 
welcome the opportunity to do so, and to move on to the other items.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Biden and I have been through this 
before. We might feel differently about things. We want to pass a bill. 
We know how important it is. But some on the other side desperately 
want to make this a gun fight and frankly we have done everything on 
our side to keep it out of there. Habeas is one reason why our side is 
willing to keep it out of it, because they recognize that for the first 
time in years in this country we can correct the habeas corpus problem 
in this country, of incessant liberal appeals--incessant frivolous 
appeals. To make a long story short, that should not be allowed.
  I have a letter here from President Clinton. President Clinton knows 
I have been trying to accommodate him. He knows I have done everything 
I possibly can to try to accommodate him on this bill, even though he 
has had to be dragged along on habeas corpus, he now admits he wants 
that in this bill.
  I hope the people on the other side, who are of the same persuasion 
and party, would support the President. But there is nothing in this 
letter, three-page letter, single-spaced, from the President, where he 
suggests what he wants in this bill--that we are trying to solve and we 
can meet every one of those problems, it seems to me, one way or the 
other--there is nothing in here about making this into a gun fight or 
making it into a fight over gun control.
  I have to say I am very concerned about it because I want this bill 
to pass. The vast majority of it I believe is acceptable to virtually 
everybody in this body. The few things that are controversial I think a 
vast majority will support. I believe the President will support this 
bill and he will sign it into law.
  Here we are, spinning our wheels, talking about gun control. That 
could be brought up on the crime bill where it should be brought up. It 
should not be used to delay this bill because these folks on the other 
side know that there are folks on this side who cannot allow the right 
to keep and bear arms to be diminished by some of these gun control 
amendments, as seemingly simple as some of them seem, as complex as 
they really are.
  I have to say personally I would be willing to meet anything on this 
bill. But I have to live within constraints, too. I am calling on my 
colleagues to get rid of the gun control amendments or else let us go 
to cloture and let us get rid of them that way. Because they are not 
germane.
  We have been on this bill 3 days. We have had five amendments that we 
have disposed of in 3 days. Now we are in the middle of a gun control 
fight instead of passing what needs to be done, and that is the day 
after the people from Oklahoma, who pinned this ribbon on me that I am 
wearing in honor and memoriam because of what happened there--the day 
after they came and said pass this bill the way it is.
  As you can see, I am worked up but I have to say I understand the 
sincerity on the part of some on the other side. I respect that. I 
understand the sincerity on the part of my friend from Massachusetts. I 
respect it, especially in his case. He and I both know what suffering 
is all about.
  I expect him to bring these amendments to the floor, but not on this 
bill. His amendment is probably less offensive to some on our side than 
some of the others that are going to be brought here, mainly because we 
do not want to see this bill turned into a gun control fight when we 
have people out there in this country who are just waiting to commit 
more terrorist acts and when we all know that we should act. We all 
know we ought to do what we can to try to bring some peace and solace 
to those who suffered in Oklahoma City as well as others in this 
country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I write to renew my call for a tough, 
     effective, and comprehensive antiterrorism bill, and I urge 
     the Congress to pass it as quickly as possible. The Executive 
     and Legislative Branches share the responsibility of ensuring 
     that adequate legal tools and resources are available to 
     protect our Nation and its people against threats to their 
     safety and well-being. The tragic bombing of the Murrah 
     Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th, the latest 
     in a disturbing trend of terrorist attacks, makes clear the 
     need to enhance the Federal government's ability to 
     investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist activity.
       To that end, I have transmitted to the Congress two 
     comprehensive legislative proposals: The ``Omnibus 
     Counterterrorism Act of 1995'' and the ``Antiterrorism 
     Amendments Act of 1995.'' In addition, the Senate has under 
     consideration your bill, S. 735, the ``Comprehensive 
     Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.'' I understand that a 
     substitute to S. 735, incorporating many of the features of 
     the two Administration proposals, will be offered in the near 
     future. I also understand that the substitute contains some 
     provisions that raise significant concerns. We must make 
     every effort to ensure that this measure responds forcefully 
     to the challenge of domestic and international terrorism. I 
     look forward to working with the Senate on the substitute and 
     to supporting its enactment, provided that the final product 
     addresses major concerns of the Administration in an 
     effective, fair, and constitutional manner. The bill should 
     include the following provisions.
       Provide clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any 
     international terrorist attack that might occur in the United 
     States, as well as provide Federal criminal jurisdiction over 
     terrorists who use the United States as the place from which 
     to plan terrorist attacks overseas.
       Provide a workable mechanism to deport alien terrorists 
     expeditiously, without risking the disclosure of national 
     security information or techniques and with adequate 
     assurance of fairness.
       Provide an assured source of funding for the 
     Administration's digital telephony initiative.
       Provide a means of preventing fundraising in the United 
     States that supports international terrorist activity 
     overseas.
       Provide access to financial and credit reports in 
     antiterrorism cases, in the same manner as banking records 
     can be obtained under 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 [[Page S7741]] permission to track telephone 
     traffic with ``pen registers'' and ``trap and trace'' 
     devices; and authorizing multiple-point wiretaps where it is 
     impractical to specify the number of the phone to be tapped 
     (such as when a suspect uses a series of cellular phones).
       Criminalize the unauthorized use of chemical weapons in 
     solid and liquid form (as they are currently criminalized for 
     use in gaseous form), and permit the miliatry 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 reffective 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not want to lecture to my colleagues 
on the other side. They all are sincere. They all have their own ideas. 
But I think it is time for them to start supporting their President. 
They ought to get behind President Clinton on this issue and, as tough 
as it is, they ought to pass this bill because we have tried to 
accommodate the President in every way. I am sure there may be some 
things where we still are in disagreement but by and large we have put 
things in here that I would just as soon--that I would just as soon not 
have in here. There are some other amendments we are probably willing 
to accept that are germane, that will make a difference here. We are 
willing to work on it on this side and get it done. But nobody is 
trying to delay this bill except those who are trying to make it a gun 
control fight.
  I would not mind that if this was the only vehicle that they could 
make a gun control fight over. I have to say, I would still mind it 
because it is important that we pass this bill. It is important that we 
pass it now. It is important that we do what we can against terrorism 
in this country. But they have all kinds of future legislation from the 
Judiciary Committee if they want to use that or any other legislation 
that they can make into a gun control fight if they want to. But they 
should not do it on this bill. They should not do it on this bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding. Let me 
say this in all due respect to the chairman, who has obviously worked 
almost since the day of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City to address 
the wishes of our President and our majority leader and a great many of 
America's citizens to change around some of our laws and strengthen 
them so that innocent people, hopefully, could be protected prior to a 
criminal element in our society doing what they did and a tragedy 
resulting.
  I and others have watched very closely as the staff of the Judiciary 
Committee has assembled this legislation from the principles the 
President laid down and from the principles the majority leader laid 
down so that no civil liberties in this country would be trampled. I 
can say that Senator Hatch in due caution has approached this in a way 
to assure that would not happen. He has now just put into the Record a 
10-point letter of May 25 from the President establishing the 
principles that the President thought were necessary in antiterrorist 
legislation.
  None of those principles embody the four or five amendments that at 
the last moment are trying to be crammed into this bill. They are 
primarily gun control amendments. They are primarily amendments that 
would trample all over the feet of second-amendment-right citizens who 
are law abiding in every respect.
  I thought we were after the criminal element until I saw that nasty 
word of ``politics'' slivering into the back door of this critical 
piece of legislation. And that is wrong, Mr. President. That should not 
be allowed to happen. In fact, I and others cannot allow it to happen. 
We support this legislation because we believe America needs it and 
wants it. And we think that many elements of it will work toward trying 
to deter, before a tragic event like Oklahoma City or the Tower 
bombings were to happen, the kind of surveillance and intelligence that 
is necessary to try to block something like that from happening. But we 
now know the rest of the story, and it is going to be, unless we stop 
the politics as usual.
  So I am saying at this moment to my leader, let us honor our 
President in this instance and, if we cannot bring the bill down, if we 
cannot arrive at a bill that is workable, bring it down, or appeal to 
the Democrats in this Chamber who support their President and the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and in all fairness the minority 
leader of that committee, who I do not believe has authored any of 
these amendments, to get this resolved and get on with the business of 
the Senate, and say to the American people, ``We have addressed your 
concerns and needs as addressed by this President and the majority 
leader of the U.S. Senate in a clean, clear criminal bill, not a bill 
that begins to trample on the ragged edge of the civil liberties of an 
awful lot of citizens in this country.''
  I will object to any effort to propose a unanimous consent, whether 
it is in the guise of limiting time, all in the name of comity. That is 
not comity at all. That is called politics in the rawest form. We 
decided after Oklahoma City that this ought not be politics as usual. 
It would be unfair to the citizens of our country, and it would be 
unlike the nature of the Congress of the United States in light of a 
dramatic human tragedy of the kind that occurred in Oklahoma City to 
play politics. And we walked away from that opportunity, and the 
Judiciary Committee, under Orrin Hatch's leadership, stayed away from 
it and produced a bill that was critical to our country.
  The President did not originally agree with habeas corpus. But last 
night he said on the Larry King Show, and I quote:

       And that ought to be done in the context of this terrorist 
     legislation.

  This President recognizes the importance of this legislation, and he 
is willing to bend a bit. Tragically enough, his own Senators are not.
  So I appeal to his Democrat Senators at this time to support their 
President, to support a quality piece of work coming from the Judiciary 
Committee that has avoided the very concern that many of us have had 
about trampling on the edge, if not boldly in the center of some of the 
civil liberties of the citizens of this country. We ought to be able to 
do that, and we can do that, and we have done it before in times of 
national crises, to adhere to our constitutional responsibility while 
at the same time strengthening the fiber of our society and in a way 
that it could disallow, cause to be avoided, or stopped from happening 
the kinds of tragedies that occurred in Oklahoma City.
  That is what we ought to be about today. That is what this chairman 
is trying to do, and that is what the majority leader is asking the 
U.S. Senate to do. Anything less than that, I hope the majority leader 
would say enough is enough, because he has this President and the 
American people on his side at this moment, on this issue. And 
obstructionism, in nature, as is now being laid down and as proposed is 
not good legislating.
  So I hope we can move in that direction. I hope we can resolve this 
issue. There are a lot of issues before the Senate that deserve to be 
resolved, and this one should be handled in a timely and appropriate 
fashion.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
[[Page S7742]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened to the great eloquence of 
my friends and colleagues on the other side. I do not know whether they 
understand what this is really all about. All it is saying is that the 
requirement that exists now on local law enforcement to destroy their 
records of multiple sales of handguns after 20 days will not be in 
effect.
  Why is that going to be such an impediment to the consideration of 
antiterrorism legislation? That is basically the amendment. I mean, 
what we have found is in the original Brady bill, the requirement that 
was introduced by the majority leader said that in order to work out 
the compromise at that particular time, there was going to be the 
requirement of keeping those records for multiple purchases of handguns 
for a period of 20 days. Now we find out from law enforcement officials 
that they cannot police efficiently the wide purchasing practices of 
many of those that are collecting these arsenals of handguns within 
that 20-day period. All they are saying is just lift the requirement 
that they have to destroy it--no requirement that they have to keep it, 
just lift the requirement that they have to destroy it. We hear, 
``Well, you are playing politics on this.'' This is politics.
  Let me just review a little bit for the Members of the Senate some of 
what has been happening because of the accumulation. Also, I point out 
to our friends and colleagues who were talking about Oklahoma City that 
this provision is supported by the police chief in Oklahoma City, and 
47 other police chiefs. The Oklahoma City police chief supports this. 
We are being told that it is irrelevant, when you have the chief of 
police in Oklahoma City and 47 others that said they want it on there. 
It will do something about violence in our society, and the 
accumulation of weapons by various groups that are irresponsible in our 
society. We are told no, no. We are not going to even let you get a 
vote on it.
  We said we would agree to a short time limit. It is not a very 
complicated issue. It is either can you vitiate that requirement that 
exists in law in 20 days or not? We can understand that. People can 
understand that very quickly. We do not need a long time to debate 
that. We do not need a long time to debate cop-killer bullets. We 
debated that issue at the time. But the majority said no, no; we are 
not going to be able to do it.
  Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor. I will just 
take a few moments before yielding the floor to give some idea about 
what Members of this body know. But certainly, our American citizens 
ought to be reminded of it. I refer to an excellent article from the 
Anti-Defamation League about the growth of weapons stockpiles in the 
various militias that are taking place across the country. I will 
include selected parts of it in the Record.
  ``Civil war could be coming, and with it the need to shoot Idaho 
legislators,'' so said Sam Sherwood, leader of the backwoods Idaho-
based U.S. Militia Association of March 2, 1995, after meeting with the 
Idaho Lieutenant Governor.
  Sherwood amplified his views in a conversation with the Associated 
Press on Friday, March 10, 1995. According to the AP:

       Sherwood believes that some Idaho lawmakers may . . . come 
     to Washington, DC, and, hence . . . ``the need to shoot 
     them,'' he said. ``Go up and look legislators in the face 
     because someday you may have to blow it off,'' Sherwood said.

  Then they continue along.

       ``Judges have been threatened with death, as have State 
     workers and even a State legislator's 7-year-old son. County 
     workers have been instructed to dive under their desks with a 
     telephone in hand if anyone storms their offices,'' reports 
     the Missoulaian.
       According to one researcher, militia members on the 
     Internet ``at one point said they were going to march on 
     Washington and arrest Congress at gunpoint,'' and in fact an 
     alert was issued by a militia group which called not only for 
     the arrest of Members of Congress but also their ``trial for 
     treason by citizen courts.''
       ``Blood will be spilled in the streets of America'', said a 
     militia leader. It is inevitable.
       According to the Arizona Republic, ``Militia groups 
     obtained the names and home addresses of all Federal officers 
     in Mississippi, prompting U.S. agencies to post a nationwide 
     alert.''

  According to the same article:

       A Tennessee man who anticipated an armed battle with one-
     world government amassed an arsenal. When local police pulled 
     up, he pulled a pistol on two officers, and one shot him in 
     the head.

  On July 27, this in the same article:

       James Roy Mullins, founder and member of a militia group 
     called the Blue Ridge Hunt Club, was arrested and charged 
     with the possession of a short-barreled rifle with 
     unregistered silencers, and facilitating the unlawful 
     purchase of a firearm. Ultimately, three other members were 
     also charged with firearm offenses. Federal officials said 
     Mullins had formed the club to arm its members in preparation 
     for war with the Government.

  What are they arming themselves with? Guns. Guns.
  On these issues, the group formed earlier in 1994 had as many as 15 
members. They are said to have met three times before Mullins' arrest. 
While members of the group say that their purpose is to lobby against 
gun control laws, Federal law enforcement officials tell a much 
different story. An ATF official who investigated the case said 
Mullins' organization has a group of confederates to be armed and 
trained in paramilitary fashion in preparation for armed conflict with 
Government authorities should firearms legislation become that 
restrictive. Evidence of such preparation is substantial. In searches 
of members' homes and storage facilities, Federal agencies found a 
stockpile of weapons--a stockpile of weapons.
 This is just to be able to have information about who is stockpiling 
weapons and what groups are actually threatening Federal officials and 
have demonstrated, at least in the tragic incident of Oklahoma, their 
willingness and ability to use deadly force.

  In Mullins' home, agents found 13 guns, several of which had homemade 
silencers. They found explosives, hand grenades, fuses, and blasting 
caps.
  Even pretrial incarceration has not stopped Mullins from threatening 
violence. While in jail, he wrote a letter to a friend saying that he 
wanted to borrow a machine gun in order to ``take care of unfinished 
business'' with prosecution witnesses.
  The strongest indication of the group's goal was the draft of a 
portion of a newsletter found on a computer disk obtained by Federal 
agents. ``Hit-and-run tactics will be our method of fighting. We will 
destroy targets, such as telephone relay centers, bridges, storage 
tanks, radio towers, airports. Human targets will be engaged when it is 
beneficial to the cause to eliminate particular individuals who oppose 
us--troops, police, political figures, snitches,'' et cetera.
  In one particular rally that they had in Lakeland, FL, in October 
1994, there was distributed in large numbers at the rally a flier 
urging that ``All gunowners should fire a warning shot as a signal to 
the Congress'' on November 11 at 11 p.m. ``Congress has failed to 
safeguard the Bill of Rights * * * especially the second amendment.''

       A warship will fire a warning shot across a bow, a 
     rattlesnake will sound off; these warnings are never ignored. 
     It is time to warn politicians that if they do not respect 
     the Bill of Rights, they should at least fear the wrath of 
     the people. Congress is forcing the country into a civil war.

  Mr. President, all this amendment does is ensures that the reporting 
conditions do not have to be destroyed after 20 days. This does not say 
the Federal Government goes out and takes away the arms. It does not 
restrict people's right to own them. It does not restrict those 
people's right to purchase. It does not restrict those individual's 
rights at all to multi-gun purchases. It does not restrict it at all.
  All it says is the requirement that after 20 days, those who are 
going to sell those kinds of weapons do not have to destroy the record 
of who they sell them to. That is all. They no longer are mandated to 
destroy the bill of sale, who they sold it to.
  The question is why? And the answer is from those 47 police chiefs. 
They believe that the maintenance of those can be an important and 
significant weapon in dealing with violence, existing violence and 
potential violence of the type at which this legislation is directed.
  I daresay that this particular provision is as relevant as any other 
provision that is before the Senate to deal with violence in our 
society. As I mentioned before, as Senator Biden has pointed out, we 
are prepared to enter into a time agreement. I am not going to take the 
time of the Senate to review other provisions that have been 
[[Page S7743]] included, accepted and supported by other Members that 
have virtually nothing to do with the fundamental issues of violence 
and terrorism, but the Members understand that and know it and the 
Record reflects it.
  This is dealing with an instrument which law enforcement officials 
believe can be extremely important and significant in helping to 
protect American citizens. It is a simple concept to continue those 
kinds of records so that law enforcement, both local and State 
officials, that are investigating crimes and violence will have an 
additional tool to make these kinds of arrests and prosecutions and to 
keep this country a safer place.
  Mr. President, I hope that we would at least be given the opportunity 
to have a vote on this measure. I just point out this issue is not 
going to go away. I also take umbrage with the fact that we have been 
on this for 2\1/2\ days. We spent this morning debating another gun 
issue where the majority could not decide whether they wanted to vote 
for it, against it, or accept it. And then after they had their caucus, 
they decided that they would go ahead and accept it.
  I take umbrage with the fact that this is a desire to delay by any of 
us. The measures which have been debated have been extremely important. 
We are prepared to cooperate with the managers in any way to get an 
early resolution. But this matter is of importance to law enforcement 
officials and to the safety and security of the American people. That 
is what this measure is about--terrorism. This amendment, a modest 
amendment, ought to be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it had been my hope following the policy 
luncheon that we would have a major shortening of the list of 
amendments on the other side of the aisle. As I understand, there has 
been really no effort to limit the amendments, except they picked out 
five or six amendments which are not germane and suggested time 
agreements on the nongermane amendments. I do not know the merits of 
this amendment. It may be a very good amendment. I do not debate the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I do not believe it was suggested in the 
President's bill--in any of the President's bills. Again, the President 
sent me a letter on May 25 outlining his objectives for an 
antiterrorism bill. There is nothing with reference to this amendment 
in it.
  The President did change. We had a vote on the taggants amendment 
yesterday. We accepted another gun amendment. I think what this has 
become is the Democrats are bringing up all the gun amendments they 
have been keeping in their closet.
  Mr. President, we are not going to play that game. I made the best 
effort I could to work with the White House in an effort to pass 
antiterrorism legislation, but the Democrats just insist they do not 
want to do that. They do not want to pass antiterrorism legislation. 
They have already forgotten what happened in Oklahoma City. They want 
to have a big debate out here, a big political debate to try to score a 
few political points, and that is not going to happen.
  If we want an antiterrorism bill, we will vote for cloture tomorrow 
morning. If we do not, that is it, we will go on to telecommunications. 
The majority is not going to play this game for the benefit of a few 
Democrats who want to continue to try to make political points. It is 
almost impossible to work with this White House when you have Democrats 
in the Senate not willing to work with the White House. How do they 
expect Republicans in the Senate to work with the White House?
  We are not going to play these games. We were told we were going to 
get a big list of amendments that were going to be eliminated. None has 
been eliminated. So I am going to suggest that we have a period for the 
transaction of morning business for the next 45 minutes, and we are 
going to try to determine what is going to happen. If nothing is going 
to happen, then we will just recess for the day, have a cloture vote 
tomorrow, and if the Democrats vote against cloture, that is fine. I 
want all of them to explain to the President why they did not support 
an antiterrorism bill, a bipartisan antiterrorism bill.
  We began this bill on Thursday. We were delayed 1 day because the 
Democrats had 60-some votes on the budget bill. We have had filibuster 
by amendment around here all year long, bill after bill after bill. 
``Oh, do not file cloture, we will just propose 50 or 60 amendments.'' 
We had a record 32 votes in 1 day on amendments on everything they 
could think of.
  So we began on Thursday, and we were on it on Friday and Monday, and 
now it is Tuesday. Now I understand they do not want to do anything 
tomorrow. They want to wait and get all these time agreements on habeas 
corpus. Tomorrow is Wednesday. We are just eating into the August 
recess day by day, and if nobody cares, it does not make any difference 
to this Senator, because I assume we will probably be here in any 
event.
  Either we are going to get cooperation on the other side of the aisle 
or we are going to pull the bill down. I think the best thing to do is 
wait and have a cloture vote. Stop playing the game. Let us have a 
cloture vote tomorrow morning, and if Members on that side want to 
support their President with an antiterrorism bill, they will vote for 
cloture. If they do not want to support their President, they will vote 
against cloture. It is all right with this Senator, but we will have 
kept our word with the President of the United States to deliver him an 
antiterrorism bill, not a bill with a lot of amendments on it to make a 
political point for somebody on the other side.
  So I have just reached the limit of my patience on this particular 
measure.

                          ____________________