[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5978-H5979]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              CONCERNS REGARDING ANTITERRORISM LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, for the last 3 days those of us who have the 
honor of serving on the Committee on the Judiciary have been engaged in 
some very [[Page H5979]] important, far-reaching legislation. What we 
have been considering, Mr. Speaker, is antiterrorism or 
counterterrorism legislation.
  This legislation which has come before the Committee on the Judiciary 
is not something that arose simply because of what happened recently in 
Oklahoma, although it has taken on additional and rather urgent 
importance in light of what happened in Oklahoma.
  It is however of concern to a number of us as conservatives and who 
were sent here to the House of Representatives as result of the 
election last year to take a very hard look at the power of the Federal 
Government to determine not only if there are circumstances under which 
the powers of the Federal Government may have gotten too broad, too 
large, and too extended so that we would be looking at methods to bring 
back in and rein back in the power of the Federal Government in those 
instances in which it has been too broadly construed or has been 
extended too far, but also to be very careful and jealous guardians of 
those authorities that currently belong to States and local communities 
and to take a very hard look, a very fair look, but a very hard look at 
those areas where the Federal Government is seeking to expand its 
authority.
  The legislation that we have been considering in the Judiciary 
Committee raises some of these concerns that I would like to this 
evening just raise and alert the people of the United States of America 
to.
  None of us favor terrorism, and certainly when we have legislation 
that is couched as counterterrorism or antiterrorism, certainly there 
is a predisposition, an inclination on all of our parts to say 
absolutely, we must pass whatever legislation is necessary in order to 
do everything within reason and within the bounds of our Constitution 
to prevent incidents such as what happened in Oklahoma recently from 
occurring, and to ensure that if it ever does occur, that our law 
enforcement officials and our prosecutors and our courts have full 
authority to investigate thoroughly, to apprehend, to prosecute, and 
then to punish to the greatest extent possible under our system of laws 
those that would perpetrate such acts on American citizens or indeed 
anybody within the geographic bounds of the United States of America.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing and that I am personally 
facing in the committee with regard to this legislation, is that it 
seems to go beyond what the Government needs in order to really carry 
out its responsibility to protect American citizens against acts of 
terrorism and to prosecute those who do commit acts of terrorism. It 
goes beyond what is needed to simply what some of our law enforcement 
officials and some in our Government would like to see the Federal 
Government have.
  It extends the reach, for example, Mr. Speaker, very broadly beyond 
the current definition of what is terrorism, and under the legislation 
that we are currently considering in the Committee on the Judiciary, 
for example, virtually any crime of violence committed anywhere in our 
country for whatever reason becomes a terrorist action.
  Once under the legislation that is being considered an action becomes 
or falls within the definition of terrorism or terrorist activity or 
terrorist action, then a whole series of things occurs such as 
loosening of the standard on wiretap authority, loosening of the 
standard on the Federal Government's ability and law enforcement's 
ability to obtain certain types of records on citizens, and so on and 
so forth.
  This is the concern, Mr. Chairman, and I think we need to be very, 
very careful and very jealous that in our understandable effort and our 
understandable zeal to protect our citizens against a recurrence of 
what happened in Oklahoma that we do not cross over the line and extend 
too much authority to the Government and that we do not inadvertently 
trample on some of our very cherished constitutional rights.

                              {time}  1930

  We are going to be continuing the markup of this legislation 
tomorrow. There will be further refinements to it, and then, of course, 
the full House will have full opportunity to look at this.
  But I do have some concerns, Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, in 
that it does seem to go far beyond the current bounds of the reach of 
the Federal Government and really gets the Federal Government into a 
whole range of activities that, under standards of federalism, 
certainly as I and the citizens of the Seventh District understand 
them, say, ``Yes, we do want to have strong Federal law enforcement, 
but that does not mean we want the Federal Government involved in 
virtually every aspect of criminal activity that might take place 
anywhere in our country.''
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to share some of 
these concerns, and we will hear more on this as we continue the 
deliberations in the Committee on the Judiciary and on the full floor.


                          ____________________