[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          BASIC RIGHTS SWEPT ASIDE IN RUSH TO FIGHT TERRORISM

                                 ______


                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 13, 1996

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to Congress in the fall 
of 1994, I was extremely honored to represent the people of the 16th 
District of California, and I was also deeply honored to succeed one of 
the great legislators in the history of this body, Congressman Don 
Edwards. As the longtime chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Mr. Edwards is widely 
respected as one of the foremost protectors of our Constitution and 
civil liberties.
  He recently published an analysis of the House antiterrorism bill in 
our hometown newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, and I wanted to 
share his expert insight with my colleagues and his former colleagues.

             [From the San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 8, 1996]

          Basic Rights Swept Aside in Rush to Fight Terrorism

                            (By Don Edwards)

       Once again, in the name of a worthy objective, Congress is 
     considering legislation that aims straight at the heart of 
     the Constitution. The concern is fighting terrorism. The 
     proposed solution, however, is a comprehensive death penalty 
     and anti-terrorism bill that would do nothing to strengthen 
     the nation's defenses against terrorism. What it would do is 
     undermine fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. 
     The right to confront your accusers is one of those basic 
     rights. Our very concept of due process assumes that a person 
     cannot be punished by the government on the basis of secret 
     evidence. As the great Supreme Court Justice Felix 
     Frankfurter observed, ``Fairness can rarely be obtained by 
     secret, one-sided determination of facts.''
       Yet the pending legislation would allow the government to 
     deport legal aliens, including long-term residents, through 
     Star Chamber proceedings where the evidence is made known to 
     a judge, but is kept from the accused and his or her lawyer. 
     Imagine defending yourself against this charge: ``We are 
     going to deport you because we think you are a terrorist but 
     we won't tell you why.''
       Another provision in the bill would give Cabinet officials 
     the power to label a foreign group ``terrorist'' and make it 
     a crime for American citizens to support the lawful, peaceful 
     activities of that group. It should be--and already is--a 
     crime to support violent activity, but Americans have always 
     been free to support political and humanitarian activities of 
     foreign groups, from the African National Congress to the 
     Nicaraguan Contras.
       Another step backward in the pending terrorism bill is the 
     repeal of a modest provision I sponsored to keep the FBI from 
     investigating political activities of domestic groups. Some 
     will remember the FBI's worthless investigations in the 1980s 
     of U.S. citizens opposed to our foreign policy in Central 
     America. In the name of fighting international terrorism, the 
     FBI monitored peaceful demonstrations against U.S. military 
     aid to El Salvador, spied on groups housed in churches, and 
     interviewed travelers to Nicaragua. After the FBI finally 
     admitted that the whole exercise was a waste of resources, I 
     added a small provision to the 1994 crime bill saying that 
     the FBI could not open an investigation of ``support for 
     terrorism'' solely on the basis of political activities 
     protected under the First Amendment. Repealing my amendment 
     would send precisely the wrong message to the FBI, 
     encouraging the Bureau to investigate U.S.-based groups that 
     express lawful political views in a violent struggle abroad.
       A terrorism bill already passed by the Senate contains all 
     of these provisions plus others that would allow FBI agents 
     to obtain private records without a court order, permit the 
     use of illegally seized wiretap evidence, and expand federal 
     jurisdiction over state crimes.
       Worse yet, the terrorism bill has become a legislative 
     Christmas tree, on which an assortment of amendments are 
     being hung. Most distressingly, an amendment has been added 
     that would gut the historical right of habeas corpus, under 
     which federal courts have insisted that the U.S. 
     Constitution be followed in state court proceedings.
       Groups from across the political spectrum--from the ACLU to 
     the National Rifle Association--oppose the bill. Worried 
     Congressional leaders have offered what they call a 
     compromise bill, but they have left untouched the most odious 
     provisions dealing with secret evidence, criminal penalties 
     for support of political and humanitarian activities, and 
     habeas corpus.
       It's not as if the United States has been defenseless 
     against terrorism. To the contrary, the current legal 
     authorities have proven quite sufficient. In two successful 
     prosecutions in New York, the Justice Department won 
     convictions for the World Trade Center bombing and for a 
     planned series of attacks against the United Nations, tunnels 
     and other landmarks. The FBI promptly arrested suspects in 
     the Oklahoma City bombing. In December, federal agents 
     arrested two men for attempting to bomb an IRS building in 
     Nevada, and FBI agents reached across the Pacific to arrest a 
     man in the Philippines plotting attacks on U.S. aircraft.
       The success of law enforcement in responding to terrorism 
     without this legislation should be evidence enough that there 
     is no need for new government powers. Nonetheless, the 
     legislative process grinds on, as both parties fear political 
     fallout for appearing to do nothing about terrorism. Congress 
     should take note of the near total absence of public support 
     for this legislation. It is time for Congress to show 
     restraint and reject this latest legislative assault on the 
     Constitution.

                          ____________________