[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2129-H2190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 380

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2703) to combat terrorism. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 2 of this 
     resolution. Each amendment printed in the report may be 
     considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by 
     a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against amendments printed 
     in the report are waived. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment. The chairman of the Committee 
     of the Whole may reduce to not less than five minutes the 
     time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
     question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
     device without intervening business, provided that the time 
     for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of 
     questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     that were not earlier disposed of or germane modifications of 
     any such amendments. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to 
     this section shall be considered as read (except the 
     modifications shall be reported), shall be debatable for 
     twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question 
     in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the 
     purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment 
     printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to 
     the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text 
     originally proposed to be stricken. All points of order 
     against such amendment en bloc are waived. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 3. After passage of H.R. 2703, it shall be in order to 
     take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 735) to prevent 
     and punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes, and to 
     consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order 
     to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate 
     bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 
     2703 as passed by the House. If the motion is adopted and the 
     Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order 
     to more that the House insist on its amendments to S. 735 and 
     request a conference with the Senate thereon.


[[Page H2130]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             general leave

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and that I be permitted to insert extraneous material on House 
Resolution 380, the resolution now under consideration.
  THe SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 380 allows for the orderly, 
but fair, consideration of H.R. 2703, the Effective Death Penalty and 
Public Safety Act of 1996. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, followed by the consideration of 17 
amendments which are specified in the report accompanying this rule.
  While we could not make in order every amendment submitted to the 
Rules Committee, the committee has tried to be as fair as possible in 
crafting this resolution. Amendments are made in order which encompass 
major areas of controversy surrounding this legislation, including 
those related to material support for terrorist acts, international 
counterfeiting, immigration, and death penalty reform, to name just a 
few. I would also note that several amendments included in this rule 
have bipartisan sponsorship. So I would just emphasize that the more 
significant areas of concern to members will have an opportunity to be 
fully debated.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order to allow 
consideration of the amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. 
The amendments will be considered in the order printed in the report, 
and will not be subject to further amendment. Debate time for each 
amendment is also prescribed in the report, with input from the 
sponsors, so that the House can work its will in a timely manner.
  In order to expedite consideration of amendments where there is 
bipartisan agreement, the rule also allows the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary to offer amendments en bloc. The rule 
permits the original proponent of an amendment included in the en bloc 
format to insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately 
prior to the disposition of the en bloc amendments. Members should also 
take note that the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole to postpone and shorten votes during consideration of this bill.
  While the rule provides for the consideration of an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, the rule also includes the customary motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, if the House passes 
this legislation, the rule provides for the necessary steps to consider 
the Senate bill. S. 735, and to request a conference.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of our colleagues know, April 19 marks the 1-
year anniversary of the devastating terrorist attack that claimed 168 
innocent lives in Oklahoma City. Combined with the nearly 500 people 
who were injured in that blast, the wanton attack on the Alfred P. 
Murrah Federal Building ranks as the worst terrorist incident ever to 
take place on U.S. soil.
  Unfortunately, it was not the first such terrorist act to take place 
here in the United States. The bombing of the World Trade Center in New 
York City in February 1993 catapulted the threat of domestic terrorism 
to the forefront of American consciousness, as our citizens slowly 
began to realize that terrorism is not confined to foreign countries.
  Up until that time, most Americans saw terrorism in an international 
light, brought to life by such events as the bombing of the U.S. 
Embassy in Lebanon, the murder of American tourist on the Achille 
Lauro, the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and 
more recently, the string of terrible bombings that has disrupted the 
flow of daily life in Israel.
  These latest attacks on the Israeli people make it clear that 
terrorism remains a serious threat worldwide. But, in the wake of the 
bombings which shook New York and Oklahoma City, we are faced with the 
sobering prospect that terrorists are at work right here in the United 
States.
  In the months which have followed these tragic events, this Congress, 
and this House in particular, have faced the challenge of defining the 
appropriate Federal response to the threat of domestic terrorism. As 
one member put it yesterday in the Rules Committee, in the fight 
against terrorism, government must balance the need for public safety 
and security with individual rights and liberties. Ideally, what keeps 
us safe from violent crimes, such as terrorism, should not negate those 
constitutional restraints which also keep us free.
  It is vitally important that our citizens have complete confidence in 
law enforcement's ability to do its job without trampling on any 
constitutional restraints. To help address these concerns, the rule 
makers in order the Bartlett amendment, to evaluate the current state 
of Federal law enforcement and its impact on public confidence.
  In my view, this bill represents a serious, bipartisan attempt to 
protect American citizens against terrorism, while also protecting 
their fundamental constitutional rights. I commend Chairman Hyde  and 
Representative Barr for working together in recent weeks to address a 
number of concerns about the constitutional boundaries to giving law 
enforcement the enhanced capability to deter and punish terrorist acts.
  H.R. 2703 contains a variety of tools designed to strengthen law 
enforcement's hand against terrorists, including, but not limited to: 
Expanded investigative methods for combatting terrorism; special 
procedures for removing aliens suspected of terrorist activity; and 
important reforms to curb the abuse of habeas corpus by convicted 
criminals.
  In addition, H.R. 2703 contains a provision that supports the growing 
national concern for innocent victims of all forms of crime. 
Specifically, it includes the language of H.R. 665, the Victim 
Restitution Act, which the House passed last February as part of the 
Contract With America's anti-crime package.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout my years as a judge and prosecutor. I worked 
closely with victims of crime whose courage and strength in the face of 
adversity and personal loss was both moving and uplifting. Like the 
families of those who lost their lives in Oklahoma City and elsewhere 
at the hands of terrorists, these individuals did not ask to be 
victims. But after experiencing crime firsthand they bravely began the 
process of recovering from their unwanted and undeserved trauma.
  After years of elevating the rights of criminals, society has begun 
to recognize that crime victims have equally important rights. 
Increasingly, their voices are being given a more meaningful role in 
developing public policy, helping them turn their personal anguish into 
positive action, but additional reforms are needed to bring some 
balance, to a process that often seems especially to them, one-sided. 
Crime victims clearly should not have to suffer twice--first at the 
hands of the criminals, and then by an inadequate justice system.
  One of those reforms, which is included in section 806 of the bill, 
is the right to adequate restitution from the perpetrator for losses 
incurred as a result of the crime itself. While restitution can never 
erase a victim's suffering, it can provide victims and their families 
with a small measure of satisfaction that our criminal justice system 
cares about their needs, too.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about who, or which political party, 
is more committed to fighting terrorism. I think we would all agree 
that keeping America safe and secure is not a partisan issue--it is one 
of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. Sadly, domestic 
terrorism has emerged as a new threat to the safety and security of our 
cities and communities. In response to that threat, we need a tough, 
no-nonsense policy that gives law enforcement reasonable and

[[Page H2131]]

legitimate tools to prevent and punish terrorist acts, and a policy 
that puts our sympathy with the victims of crime, not with the 
criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would say to my colleagues that this rule 
provides a fair way to consider a very complex piece of legislation. It 
will provide the House ample opportunity to debate a number of 
important issues related to the basic question of what constitutes the 
appropriate Federal response to combatting terrorism. The Rules 
Committee voted unanimously last night to approve this rule, and I urge 
its adoption by the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting a very long time for this bill. It 
has now been almost 1 year since that tragic day last April when the 
United States was forever changed by the madmen who blew up the Murrah 
Federal Building in Oklahoma City. We continue to witness senseless 
slaughter of innocent men, women, and children around the world because 
terrorists and extremists choose not to use legitimate political 
channels to register their dissent.
  Oklahoma City taught us we are not immune from internal threats to 
our safety and security. The December 1993 World Trade Center bombing 
made it very clear that external threats are a clear and present danger 
to us all.
  It was clear, however, that the original legislative response to 
these threats had substantial opposition from both conservative and 
liberal Members of the House. And, while the Judiciary Committee 
chairman, Mr. Hyde, has fashioned a substitute which addresses the 
concerns of a number of conservative Members, there are still other 
civil liberties concerns that have been raised by both liberals and 
conservatives. While the Committee on Rules has reported a rule which 
will allow many of these issues to be brought to the floor for the 
consideration of all Members, the committee majority did not provide 
for some amendments which might have significantly improved this 
vitally important legislative proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose this rule. But, I do believe 
that the Rules Committee Republicans, in their effort to craft what 
they call a delicate balance, have missed an opportunity to truly open 
the debate on these issues. The Committee on Rules majority has, in 
spite of its assurances at the beginning of this Congress, seen fit to 
limit debate in the House.
  This is one legislative proposal that deserves full and truly open 
debate. We are about to undertake consideration of legislation that 
seeks to afford us some measure of protection from nameless and 
faceless terrorists, but in so doing, the bill necessarily grants new 
powers to law enforcement authorities. These are matters which affect 
each and every one of us and we have a responsibility--a duty, really--
to make sure that what we do will protect both our safety and our civil 
liberties.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I know that we all agree on the urgent 
need to combat foreign and domestic terrorism. I wish the Committee on 
Rules had adopted an open rule, which is the only way that we can fully 
debate such an important and controversial issue. Several of our 
colleagues were denied the opportunity to offer important amendments, 
including one which would ban armor-piercing bullets, something we 
badly need.
  I was denied a chance to offer an amendment which would have closed 
loopholes in the current explosives law and mandate a background check 
for individuals purchasing explosives. Although the FBI has documented 
that criminal bombings have doubled in the past 6 years, this 
unprecedented increase will continue to go unchecked and the legal 
loopholes in current law will persist because I was not allowed to 
bring the amendment to the floor.
  Despite the restrictive rule, I want to commend the chairman and 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary for including measures to 
protect innocent people from bombs made of plastic explosives. As my 
colleagues may know, a plastic explosive was used in a devastating 
terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed all 270 
passengers on board, including 2 young women from my district.
  After that disaster, the United States worked closely with other 
nations to negotiate the Montreal Convention on Plastic Explosives. One 
of the most important provisions within this bill requires that plastic 
explosives include a special chemical that would make the material 
detectable at security checkpoints. If such a system had been in place 
in 1988, the explosives would never have reached the plane.
  Although the Senate ratified the convention, Congress has yet to pass 
the implementing legislation that will formally bring our laws into 
compliance. The bill I introduced earlier this year, the Bombing 
Prevention Act, would make these necessary changes, and I am pleased to 
see that the Committee on the Judiciary included the bill's language to 
implement the Montreal Convention in the bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, the antiterrorism bill does have some positive 
provisions, but we can do better than the rule and the bill before us. 
I cannot understand why the Committee on Rules will not allow the House 
to consider measures which would have traced explosives purchases. It 
would have mandated better recordkeeping by the sellers of explosives 
and would better have protected all of our constituents.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to reject yet another closed 
rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member of the 
Committee on Rules for his good work on the Committee on Rules. But I 
rise this morning in opposition to a closed rule that blocks some 74 
percent of the amendments that were offered to the Anti-terrorism Act 
of 1996.
  Let me indicate my commitment to obliterating terrorism in this 
Nation. I, too, experienced the trauma of the Pan Am 103 where 270 
people lost their lives. A young woman by the name of Myra Royal in my 
community, a bright and energetic young person with an enormous future, 
lost here life in that tragedy. But whenever we begin to tamper with 
the Constitution, I think it is also important that we view it as a 
traumatic event. The Constitutional Convention might be historically 
considered a serious undertaking to provide a document to provide for 
the liberty of Americans.
  I was denied the opportunity in presenting two amendments that I 
think would have brought about both vigorous debate, but were warranted 
in this legislation: The first one was a sunseting provision on 
subtitle F, that had to do with the designating of terrorist groups. We 
recognize that it is important for our State Department and President 
to list those groups that might engage in terrorist activities. At the 
same time, we believe in civil liberties and the right to due process.
  This particular title would in fact eliminate the opportunity for 
anyone who might have previously been involved in a group that had some 
terrorist association to justify their position in this country and to 
defend themselves if they were not involved in any terrorist activities 
or in fact they were really advocates for peace in such group. Sunset 
provisions allow this Congress to come back after a 6-year period and 
fully review this legislation to determine, has it been effective or 
has it not been effective?
  Likewise, I offered an amendment, a sunset amendment for the entire 
legislation. Why? Not because I do not believe in eliminating terrorism 
from these shores but because I believe in the civil liberties of this 
Nation and the Constitution. This would have allowed us, Mr. Speaker, 
to have a full hearing to address the pros and cons of this legislation 
and determine whether it should continue or not in 6 years.
  This is a bad rule. It eliminates the opportunity for debate. I ask 
the Speaker and the House to reject it.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, when Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed

[[Page H2132]]

by a terrorist bomb, 270 lives, including 189 Americans, were cruelly 
snuffed out. These numbers included men, women, infants, students, 
tourists, and business people, and, most importantly, wives, husbands, 
and children. That tally included 35 Syracuse University students going 
home to celebrate the holidays with their families and, it also 
included John Cummock, a vice president of Barcardi Food Co. and a 
constituent of my congressional district, who left behind a wife and 
three young children. While these individuals are beyond our power to 
help, we have today the opportunity to help the surviving families to 
secure a measure of justice.
  I would like to share with my colleagues today a letter I just 
received from Victoria Diaz Cummock, the widow of John Benning Cummock, 
and president of Families of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie. I would like to 
share Ms. Cummock's letter with all of my colleagues this morning.
  Ms. Cummock says:

       Dear Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen: On December 21, 1988 
     terrorists killed my husband, John (age 38), along with 269 
     people aboard Pan Am 103. The bombing of Pan Am 103 was the 
     single largest act of terrorism against Americans in this 
     country's history. More Americans died aboard Pan Am 103 than 
     in Desert Storm or in the Oklahoma City bombing. I was left 
     widowed with three small children, Ashley 3, Matthew 4, and 
     Christopher 6. For over seven years we have waited for our 
     country's help and support. As with all American families 
     victimized by terrorism . . . we continue to wait . . . still 
     without our country's help.
       Today, Congress has the opportunity to help us, so we can 
     help ourselves. The anti-terrorism legislation H.R. 2703, 
     contains a limited provision to waive sovereign immunity in 
     cases of state-sponsored terrorism. This gives all Americans 
     the right to pursue justice and have their day in civil court 
     against these countries. Congress can not continue to allow 
     countries that kidnap, torture, and murder Americans the 
     right to hide behind sovereign immunity. The resounding 
     message sent to countries sponsoring terrorism is that it is 
     safe to target and kill Americans because there is no 
     accountability.
       There are over 30 million Americans that travel abroad each 
     year who are not aware of how easily their lives can become 
     unraveled by terrorism. These terrorist acts are tragic and 
     devastating enough for victims' families to live with. To 
     provide no avenues for help or justice to our families or the 
     hostage survivors, like Joseph Ciccipio and David Jacobson, 
     leaves thousands of Americans with both the physical and 
     mental scars, thus allowing terrorists to win over our lives, 
     (the survivors families), as well.
       In contrast, for commercial reasons, U.S. corporations have 
     the right to their day in civil court, to seek accountability 
     and restitution for their damages under these same 
     circumstances. In other words, our nation's present law 
     allows restitution for a terrorist bombing of an airplane 
     full of children--but not people. This is an outrage.
       Today our legislators can set the record straight and send 
     a message of hope and support to all the orphans, widows and 
     American families victimized by terrorism. H.R. 2703, 
     containing ``the right to sue'' provision allowing us to help 
     ourselves. Please, as our legislators, don't continue to turn 
     your backs on the families of Americans who have paid the 
     ultimate price and sacrificed so much for this great nation. 
     Let me be able to tell my children, who daily pledge 
     allegiance to the American flag, that America stands with us 
     in our pursuit of justice and accountability. Our hopes and 
     prayers are with Congress today.
           Sincerely,
     Victoria Diaz Cummock,
                                    Widow of John Binning Cummock,
                      President, Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie.

  Mr. Speaker, the past several decades have taught us a great deal 
about international terrorism. We know that, to function in the 
international arena, these criminals require state sponsorship. As our 
colleague, Representative Tom Lantos, has stated:

       Terrorists do not operate in a vacuum, but rather rely on 
     certain nations where they know they will find safe haven 
     after carrying out their murderous acts. They must have at 
     least tacit governmental approval of planned operations and 
     millions with which to continue to buy the tools of death and 
     destruction.

  The physical evidence recovered from the wreckage demonstrated the 
truth of that observation. The explosive was identified: it turned out 
to be an exotic plastic explosive, an explosive formulated to evade 
detection by conventional airport security. The electronics were 
similarly specialized and while helping to solve the crime, did not 
bring justice.
  When this forensic evidence identified the regime of Libyan dictator 
Muammar Qadhafi as responsible for this crime, diplomatic pressure has 
been applied in an effort to force the extradition of these murders. 
Qadhafi has refused to surrender them for trail in either the United 
Kingdom or the United States.
  To avoid civil action, the regime has hidden behind the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. This is the classic situation of a 
criminal regime invoking the protection of the law while acting in 
contempt of it. This bill contains a provision that will, under the 
narrow circumstances of terror and genocide, allow victims to reach 
beyond the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to seek redress for these 
crimes from the governments that sponsor these atrocities.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and 
the need to seek justice for their families.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 60th restrictive rule reported out of the 
Rules Committee this Congress. In fact, 89 percent of the rules this 
session have been restrictive.
  Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include a compilation of floor 
procedure in the 104th Congress as compiled by the Committee on Rules 
Democrats.

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed; contained a              None.
                                  Package.                                 closed rule on H.R. 1                
                                                                           within the closed                    
                                                                           rule.                                
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive; Motion               N/A.
                                                                           adopted over                         
                                                                           Democratic objection                 
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole to limit                   
                                                                           debate on section 4;                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           preference.                          
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive; only              2R; 4D.
                                                                           certain substitutes.                 
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive;                      N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                              considered in House                  
                                                                           no amendments.                       
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
                                  Mexico.                                                                       
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park and                                                             
                                  Preserve.                                                                     
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
                                  California.                                                                   
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference.                     
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             gets preference.                     
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                            gets preference.                     
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                        Time Cap on                          
                                  of 1995.                                 amendments.                          
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Deportation                              gets preference;                     
                                  Improvement Act.                         Contains self-                       
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                          Time Cap on                          
                                  Block Grants.                            amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Revitalization                           Time Cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive; brought              N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                  up under UC with a 6                 
                                                                           hr. time cap on                      
                                                                           amendments.                          
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed; Put on                   None.
                                                                           Suspension Calendar                  
                                                                           over Democratic                      
                                                                           objection.                           
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Extend the Health                        order only the                       
                                  Insurance                                Gibbons amendment;                   
                                  Deduction for the                        Waives all points of                 
                                  Self-Employed.                           order; Contains self-                
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Supplemental/                            order only the Obey                  
                                  Rescinding                               substitute.                          
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                              Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                                                           Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive; 12 hr.                1D.
                                  Protection Act.                          time cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Requires                 
                                                                           Members to pre-print                 
                                                                           their amendments in                  
                                                                           the Record prior to                  
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration for                    
                                                                           amendment, waives                    
                                                                           germaneness and                      
                                                                           budget act points of                 
                                                                           order as well as                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           concerning                           
                                                                           appropriating on a                   
                                                                           legislative bill                     
                                                                           against the committee                
                                                                           substitute used as                   
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive; 8 hr.                 1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                        time cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference; Makes in                 
                                                                           order the Wyden                      
                                                                           amendment and waives                 
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           it.                                  
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive; 7 hr.                N/A.
                                  Accountability                           time cap on                          
                                  Act of 1995.                             amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          

[[Page H2133]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive; makes in          8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                         order only 15 germane                
                                  Act.                                     amendments and denies                
                                                                           64 germane amendments                
                                                                           from being considered.               
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive; Combines             N/A.
                                  Supplemental                             emergency H.R. 1158 &                
                                  Appropriations                           nonemergency 1159 and                
                                  and Rescissions.                         strikes the abortion                 
                                                                           provision; makes in                  
                                                                           order only pre-                      
                                                                           printed amendments                   
                                                                           that include offsets                 
                                                                           within the same                      
                                                                           chapter (deeper cuts                 
                                                                           in programs already                  
                                                                           cut); waives points                  
                                                                           of order against                     
                                                                           three amendments;                    
                                                                           waives cl 2 of rule                  
                                                                           XXI against the bill,                
                                                                           cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of                
                                                                           rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           substitute; waives cl                
                                                                           2(e) od rule XXI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments in the                    
                                                                           Record; 10 hr time                   
                                                                           cap on amendments. 30                
                                                                           minutes debate on                    
                                                                           each amendment.                      
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive; Makes in           1D; 3R
                                                                           order only 4                         
                                                                           amendments considered                
                                                                           under a ``Queen of                   
                                                                           the Hill'' procedure                 
                                                                           and denies 21 germane                
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered.                          
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive; Makes in         5D; 26R.
                                                                           order only 31                        
                                                                           perfecting amendments                
                                                                           and two substitutes;                 
                                                                           Denies 130 germane                   
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered; The                      
                                                                           substitutes are to be                
                                                                           considered under a                   
                                                                           ``Queen of the Hill''                
                                                                           procedure; All points                
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive; Self                  1D.
                                  America Tax                              Executes language                    
                                  Relief Act of                            that makes tax cuts                  
                                  1995.                                    contingent on the                    
                                                                           adoption of a                        
                                                                           balanced budget plan                 
                                                                           and strikes section                  
                                                                           3006. Makes in order                 
                                                                           only one substitute.                 
                                                                           Waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           bill, substitute made                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text and Gephardt                    
                                                                           substitute.                          
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive; waives cl             1D.
                                  Extension.                               2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes H.R. 1391 in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the Dingell                     
                                                                           substitute; allows                   
                                                                           Commerce Committee to                
                                                                           file a report on the                 
                                                                           bill at any time.                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee substitute;                
                                                                           waives cl 5(a) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute.                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference;                     
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f) and 602(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act                       
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI, cl                 
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI and                 
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Makes in                 
                                                                           order Shuster                        
                                                                           substitute as first                  
                                                                           order of business.                   
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive; Makes in          3D; 1R.
                                                                           order 4 substitutes                  
                                                                           under regular order;                 
                                                                           Gephardt, Neumann/                   
                                                                           Solomon, Payne/Owens,                
                                                                           President's Budget if                
                                                                           printed in Record on                 
                                                                           5/17/95; waives all                  
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against substitutes                  
                                                                           and concurrent                       
                                                                           resolution; suspends                 
                                                                           application of Rule                  
                                                                           XLIX with respect to                 
                                                                           the resolution; self-                
                                                                           executes Agriculture                 
                                                                           language.                            
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive; Requires             N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                         amendments to be                     
                                  1995.                                    printed in the Record                
                                                                           prior to their                       
                                                                           consideration; 10 hr.                
                                                                           time cap; waives cl                  
                                                                           2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Also                  
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f), 303(a),                      
                                                                           308(a) and 402(a)                    
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee amendment                  
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives cl 5(a)                 
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the amendment;                       
                                                                           amendment                            
                                                                           consideration is                     
                                                                           closed at 2:30 p.m.                  
                                                                           on May 25, 1995. Self-               
                                                                           executes provision                   
                                                                           which removes section                
                                                                           2210 from the bill.                  
                                                                           This was done at the                 
                                                                           request of the Budget                
                                                                           Committee.                           
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive; Makes in      36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization Act                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  FY 1996.                                 amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill,                    
                                                                           substitute and                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Gives the                
                                                                           Chairman en bloc                     
                                                                           authority. Self-                     
                                                                           executes a provision                 
                                                                           which strikes section                
                                                                           807 of the bill;                     
                                                                           provides for an                      
                                                                           additional 30 min. of                
                                                                           debate on Nunn-Lugar                 
                                                                           section; Allows Mr.                  
                                                                           Clinger to offer a                   
                                                                           modification of his                  
                                                                           amendment with the                   
                                                                           concurrence of Ms.                   
                                                                           Collins.                             
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Construction                             cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                  Appropriations;                          against the bill; 1                  
                                  FY 1996.                                 hr. general debate;                  
                                                                           Uses House passed                    
                                                                           budget numbers as                    
                                                                           threshold for                        
                                                                           spending amounts                     
                                                                           pending passage of                   
                                                                           Budget.                              
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive; Makes in        5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                          order only 11             Bipartisan.
                                                                           amendments; waives                   
                                                                           sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the bill                 
                                                                           and cl. 2 and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill. All points                 
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open; waives cl. 2,               N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 5(b), and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Gilman                     
                                                                           amendments as first                  
                                                                           order of business;                   
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendments; if                       
                                                                           adopted they will be                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl. 2 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority (Hall)                      
                                                                           (Menendez) (Goss)                    
                                                                           (Smith, NJ).                         
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes in order the                   
                                                                           Shuster amendment as                 
                                                                           the first order of                   
                                                                           business; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; if adopted                
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as original text. Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed; provides one              N/A.
                                  Amendment to                             hour of general                      
                                  Permit Congress                          debate and one motion                
                                  and States to                            to recommit with or                  
                                  Prohibit the                             without instructions;                
                                  Physical                                 if there are                         
                                  Desecration of                           instructions, the MO                 
                                  the American Flag.                       is debatable for 1 hr.               
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                                                           for consideration of                 
                                                                           the bill in the                      
                                                                           House; Permits the                   
                                                                           Chairman of the                      
                                                                           Appropriations                       
                                                                           Committee to offer                   
                                                                           one amendment which                  
                                                                           is unamendable;                      
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment.                           
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for further                          
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the four                        
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the rules report (20                 
                                                                           min. each). Waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Prohibits                
                                                                           intervening motions                  
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole; Provides                  
                                                                           for an automatic rise                
                                                                           and report following                 
                                                                           the disposition of                   
                                                                           the amendments.                      
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act and cl                
                                                                           2 and cl 6 of rule                   
                                                                           XXI; provides that                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; self-                     
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment;                 
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H. Res. 187          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f), 306 and                      
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act; waives clauses 2                
                                                                           and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; provides                  
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; self-                      
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           and makes NEA funding                
                                                                           subject to House                     
                                                                           passed authorization;                
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open; waives clauses 2            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; Makes Skeen                
                                                                           amendment first order                
                                                                           of business, if                      
                                                                           adopted the amendment                
                                                                           will be considered as                
                                                                           base text (10 min.);                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for the further                      
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; allows only                    
                                                                           amendments pre-                      
                                                                           printed before July                  
                                                                           14th to be                           
                                                                           considered; limits                   
                                                                           motions to rise.                     
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; Pre-printing                  
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  for China.                               for consideration in                 
                                                                           the House of H.R.                    
                                                                           2058 (90 min.) And                   
                                                                           H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).                 
                                                                           Waives certain                       
                                                                           provisions of the                    
                                                                           Trade Act.                           
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open; waives cl. 3 0f             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          rule XIII and section                
                                                                           401 (a) of the CBA                   
                                                                           against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; waives                  
                                                                           cl. 6 and cl. 2 of                   
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           provisions in the                    
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Clinger/Solomon                  
                                                                           amendment waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the amendment                
                                                                           (Line Item Veto);                    
                                                                           provides the bill be                 
                                                                           read by title; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority. *RULE                      
                                                                           AMENDED*.                            
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open; Makes in order              N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                         the Resources                        
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           in the nature of a                   
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides a                 
                                                                           Senate hook-up with                  
                                                                           S. 395.                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Pre-                       
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title..                              
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Provides                   
                                                                           that the amendment in                
                                                                           part 1 of the report                 
                                                                           is the first                         
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as base text (30                     
                                                                           min.); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Klug and                 
                                                                           Davis amendments; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title.                            
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive; 3 hours               ID.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                        of general debate;                   
                                  on Bosnia.                               Makes in order an                    
                                                                           amendment to be                      
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee (1 hr); If                  
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           has instructions it                  
                                                                           can only be offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee.                
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           and section 306 of                   
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; self-                      
                                                                           executes a strike of                 
                                                                           sections 8021 and                    
                                                                           8024 of the bill as                  
                                                                           requested by the                     
                                                                           Budget Committee; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               

[[Page H2134]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive; waives        2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                 sec. 302(f) of the          partisan.
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Commerce                         
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           as original text and                 
                                                                           waives sec. 302(f) of                
                                                                           the Budget Act and                   
                                                                           cl. 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Makes in                  
                                                                           order the Bliely                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.)                  
                                                                           as the first order of                
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be original                  
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amendments                  
                                                                           printed in the report                
                                                                           and waives all points                
                                                                           of order against the                 
                                                                           amendments; provides                 
                                                                           a Senate hook-up with                
                                                                           S. 652.                              
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open; Provides that               N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the first order of                   
                                  Act.                                     business will be the                 
                                                                           managers amendments                  
                                                                           (10 min.), if adopted                
                                                                           they will be                         
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against certain                      
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open; 2 hr of gen.                N/A.
                                  Targeted                                 debate. makes in                     
                                  Investments.                             order the committee                  
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text.                       
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           sections 302(f),                     
                                                                           308(a) and 401(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act. Makes                
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           as modified by Govt.                 
                                                                           Reform amend                         
                                                                           (striking sec. 505)                  
                                                                           and an amendment                     
                                                                           striking title VII.                  
                                                                           Cl 7 of rule XVI and                 
                                                                           cl 5(a) of rule XXI                  
                                                                           are waived against                   
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           401(b) of the CBA are                
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Amendments must also                 
                                                                           be pre-printed in the                
                                                                           Congressional record.                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open; waives cl 7 of              N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           made in order as                     
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Acquisition                              302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                  Reform Act of                            the Budget Act                       
                                  1995.                                    against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; bill                    
                                                                           will be read by                      
                                                                           title; waives cl 5(a)                
                                                                           of rule XXI and                      
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                         302(f) and 401(b) of                 
                                  Development and                          the Budget Act                       
                                  Literacy Programs                        against the                          
                                  Act (CAREERS).                           substitute made in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text (H.R. 2332), cl.                
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI is                  
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           provides for                         
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           managers amendment                   
                                                                           (10 min.) If adopted,                
                                                                           it is considered as                  
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  System                                   302(f) of the Budget                 
                                  Designation Act                          Act against                          
                                  of 1995.                                 consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes H.R. 2349                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives section                 
                                                                           302(f) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the                      
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           for the consideration                
                                                                           of a managers                        
                                                                           amendment (10 min.)                  
                                                                           If adopted, it is                    
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority.                       
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive; waives cl           2R/2D
                                  Democratic                               2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Solidarity Act of                        against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order H.R. 2347 as                   
                                                                           base text; waives cl                 
                                                                           7 of rule XVI against                
                                                                           the substitute; Makes                
                                                                           Hamilton amendment                   
                                                                           the first amendment                  
                                                                           to be considered (1                  
                                                                           hr). Makes in order                  
                                                                           only amendments                      
                                                                           printed in the report.               
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Employees and                            2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI                
                                  managers Act of                          against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order the committee                  
                                                                           amendment as original                
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           get priority.                        
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Certain                                  committee amendment                  
                                  Injunctions.                             as original text; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Space Station                            committee amendment                  
                                  Authorization Act                        as original text; pre-               
                                  of 1995.                                 printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed; Provides for    ..............
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open; self-executes a             N/A.
                                  Science                                  provision striking                   
                                  Authorization Act                        section 304(b)(3) of                 
                                  of 1995.                                 the bill (Commerce                   
                                                                           Committee request);                  
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive; waives cl              1D
                                  Certain                                  2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Sentencing                               against the bill's                   
                                  Guideline                                consideration; makes                 
                                  Amendments.                              in order the text of                 
                                                                           the Senate bill S.                   
                                                                           1254 as original                     
                                                                           text; Makes in order                 
                                                                           only a Conyers                       
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           a senate hook-up                     
                                                                           after adoption.                      
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive; waives                 1D
                                  Preservation Act.                        all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the text of                 
                                                                           H.R. 2485 as original                
                                                                           text; waives all                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against H.R. 2485;                   
                                                                           makes in order only                  
                                                                           an amendment offered                 
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee;                
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           for consideration of                 
                                  Bill.                                    the bill in the House.               
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive; makes in               1D
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                   order H.R. 2517 as                   
                                  Reconciliation                           original text; waives                
                                  Social Security                          all pints of order                   
                                  Earnings Test                            against the bill;                    
                                  Reform.                                  Makes in order only                  
                                                                           H.R. 2530 as an                      
                                                                           amendment only if                    
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes).                      
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive; waives                N/A
                                  Appropriations FY                        all points of order                  
                                  1996.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walsh                   
                                                                           amendment as the                     
                                                                           first order of                       
                                                                           business (10 min.);                  
                                                                           if adopted it is                     
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl 2 and                
                                                                           6 of rule XXI against                
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Bonilla,                   
                                                                           Gunderson and                        
                                                                           Hostettler amendments                
                                                                           (30 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; debate on                
                                                                           any further                          
                                                                           amendments is limited                
                                                                           to 30 min. each.                     
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed; Provides for               N/A
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive; Provides               5R
                                  in the Statutory                         for the immediate                    
                                  Debt Limit.                              consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee; self-                 
                                                                           executes 4 amendments                
                                                                           in the rule; Solomon,                
                                                                           Medicare Coverage of                 
                                                                           Certain Anti-Cancer                  
                                                                           Drug Treatments,                     
                                                                           Habeas Corpus Reform,                
                                                                           Chrysler (MI); makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walker                  
                                                                           amend (40 min.) on                   
                                                                           regulatory reform.                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open; waives section    ..............
                                                                           302(f) and section                   
                                                                           308(a).                              
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of a                   
                                                                           motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                         the immediate                        
                                  Limit on the                             consideration of a                   
                                  Public Debt.                             motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed; provides for                2R
                                  Reform.                                  consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill in the House; 30                
                                                                           min. of debate; makes                
                                                                           in order the Burton                  
                                                                           amendment and the                    
                                                                           Gingrich en bloc                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.                   
                                                                           each); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Gingrich                 
                                                                           is only in order if                  
                                                                           Burton fails or is                   
                                                                           not offered.                         
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the Istook                   
                                                                           and McIntosh                         
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                         all points of order                  
                                  Deployment.                              against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration;                       
                                                                           provides one motion                  
                                                                           to amend if offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or designee (1                
                                                                           hr non-amendable);                   
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           which may have                       
                                                                           instructions only if                 
                                                                           offered by Minority                  
                                                                           Leader or his                        
                                                                           designee; if Minority                
                                                                           Leader motion is not                 
                                                                           offered debate time                  
                                                                           will be extended by 1                
                                                                           hr.                                  
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open; waives all                  N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                        points of order                      
                                  of 1995.                                 against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Transportation                       
                                                                           substitute modified                  
                                                                           by the amend in the                  
                                                                           report; Bill read by                 
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order a managers                     
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Pre-                      
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open; makes in order              N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             the committee                        
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; makes                 
                                                                           in order a managers                  
                                                                           amendment which if                   
                                                                           adopted is considered                
                                                                           as original text (20                 
                                                                           min.) unamendable;                   
                                                                           pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res. 293          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                             the adoption of the                  
                                                                           Ways & Means                         
                                                                           amendment printed in                 
                                                                           the report. 1 hr. of                 
                                                                           general debate.                      
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H. Res. 303          Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Management Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    and sections 302(f)                  
                                                                           and 311(a) of the                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration. Makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Resources substitute                 
                                                                           as base text and                     
                                                                           waives cl 7 of rule                  
                                                                           XVI and sections                     
                                                                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act; makes                
                                                                           in order a managers'                 
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min).                            
H. Res. 304....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed; makes in order          1D; 2R
                                  Debate and                               three resolutions;                   
                                  Consideration of                         H.R. 2770 (Dorman),                  
                                  Three Measures                           H. Res. 302 (Buyer),                 
                                  Relating to U.S.                         and H. Res. 306                      
                                  Troop Deployments                        (Gephardt); 1 hour of                
                                  in Bosnia.                               debate on each..                     
H. Res. 309....................  Revised Budget      H. Res. 309          Closed; provides 2                N/A.
                                  Resolution.                              hours of general                     
                                                                           debate in the House.                 
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H. Res. 313          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                        gets priority.                       
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed; consideration             N/A.
                                  and National                             in the House; self-                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                          executes Young                       
                                  Systems Freedom                          amendment.                           
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  extension of                             take the bill from                   
                                  nondiscriminatory                        the Speaker's table                  
                                  treatment (MFN)                          with the Senate                      
                                  to the products                          amendment, and                       
                                  of Bulgaria.                             consider in the House                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous question is                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           ordered..                            
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed; provides to               N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                          take from the                        
                                  establishing                             Speaker's table H.J.                 
                                  procedures making                        Res. 134 with the                    
                                  the transmission                         Senate amendment and                 
                                  of the continuing                        concur with the                      
                                  resolution H.J.                          Senate amendment with                
                                  Res. 134.                                an amendment (H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131) which is                   
                                                                           self-executed in the                 
                                                                           rule. The rule                       
                                                                           provides further that                
                                                                           the bill shall not be                
                                                                           sent back to the                     
                                                                           Senate until the                     
                                                                           Senate agrees to the                 
                                                                           provisions of H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131..                           

[[Page H2135]]

                                                                                                                
H. R. 1358.....................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  National Marine                          take the bill from                   
                                  Fisheries Service                        the Speakers table                   
                                  Laboratory at                            with the Senate                      
                                  Gloucester,                              amendment, and                       
                                  Massachusetts.                           consider in the House                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous question is                 
                                                                           considered as ordered.               
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive; waives          5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                        all points of order       Bipartisan.
                                  Program.                                 against the bill; 2                  
                                                                           hrs of general                       
                                                                           debate; makes in                     
                                                                           order a committee                    
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text and                    
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order only the 16                    
                                                                           amends printed in the                
                                                                           report and waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments;                          
                                                                           circumvents unfunded                 
                                                                           mandates law;                        
                                                                           Chairman has en bloc                 
                                                                           authority for amends                 
                                                                           in report (20 min.)                  
                                                                           on each en bloc.                     
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H. Res 368           Open rule; makes in                N/A
                                  & Review Act of                          order the Hyde                       
                                  1995.                                    substitute printed in                
                                                                           the Record as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; vacates the                
                                                                           House action on S.                   
                                                                           219 and provides to                  
                                                                           take the bill from                   
                                                                           the Speakers table                   
                                                                           and consider the                     
                                                                           Senate bill; allows                  
                                                                           Chrmn. Clinger a                     
                                                                           motion to strike all                 
                                                                           after the enacting                   
                                                                           clause of the Senate                 
                                                                           bill and insert the                  
                                                                           text of H.R. 994 as                  
                                                                           passed by the House                  
                                                                           (1 hr) debate; waives                
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           the motion; provides                 
                                                                           if the motion is                     
                                                                           adopted that it is in                
                                                                           order for the House                  
                                                                           to insist on its                     
                                                                           amendments and                       
                                                                           request a conference.                
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H. Res 371           Closed rule; gives one             N/A
                                  Continuing Full                          motion to recommit,                  
                                  Investment of                            which if it contains                 
                                  Social security                          instructions, may                    
                                  and Other Federal                        only if offered by                   
                                  Funds in                                 the Minority Leader                  
                                  Obligations of                           or his designee.                     
                                  the United States.                                                            
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H. Res. 372          Restrictive; self-               2D/2R
                                  Downpayment                              executes CBO language                
                                  Toward a Balanced                        regarding contingency                
                                  Budget.                                  funds in section 2 of                
                                                                           the rule; makes in                   
                                                                           order only the                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Lowey (20                
                                                                           min), Istook (20                     
                                                                           min), Crapo (20 min),                
                                                                           Obey (1 hr); waives                  
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; give one                 
                                                                           motion to recommit,                  
                                                                           which if contains                    
                                                                           instructions, may                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee.                     
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive; makes in        6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                        order only the             Bipartisan
                                  Public Safety Act                        amendments printed in                
                                  of 1996.                                 the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of orer                   
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; gives                    
                                                                           Judiciary Chairman en                
                                                                           bloc authority (20                   
                                                                           min.) on enblocs;                    
                                                                           provides a Senate                    
                                                                           hook-up with S. 735.                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. ***     
  Legislation 2d Session. 89% restrictive; 11% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress 60% restrictive; 40%   
  open. ***** Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include
  so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for  
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is   
  taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A    
  means not available.                                                                                          


  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just assert that this is a very fair way to 
consider a very complex piece of legislation. It will provide the House 
ample opportunity to debate a number of very important issues to the 
basic question of what constitutes our appropriate Federal response to 
combating terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report of the amendment 
process under special rules reported by the Committee on Rules, 103d 
Congress versus 104th Congress.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of March 12, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 59                 62
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 23                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 13                 14
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 95                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                             [As of March 12, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            

[[Page H2136]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 376 (3/7/96)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         .................
                                                                        Penalty.                                
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair 
rule allowing us to consider a host of important issue relating to 
crime, terrorism, punishment, the proper role of the Federal 
Government, and the rights of all Americans. The Rules Committee had a 
tough assignment in wading through some 70 amendments to this bill--and 
I believe we have done a fair job of selecting amendments to ensure a 
broad and inclusive debate.
  Mr. Speaker, in a nation that is accustomed to extraordinary personal 
liberties, we have had to consider the terrible reality of terrorism 
hitting home. The World Trade Center bombing made us painfully aware of 
the risks associated with living in a free society in a dangerous and 
unsettled world.
  We agree that all Americans deserve to be safe in their homes, at 
their schools, on their jobs, and in their neighborhoods. And we are 
attempting with this bill to improve our ability to meet that 
challenge. There is a delicate balance, however, between the necessity 
of empowering Government entities to protect the peace and the 
necessity of preserving the constitutional rights of free people in our 
society. I have heard in recent days from many southwest Floridians who 
are concerned that this bill as now written upsets that balance, 
overextending the power of the Government at the expense of 
individuals' rights. They have urged us to be sure that we do not fall 
into the trap of responding to the risk of terrorism at home simply by 
passing new legislation that does not effectively attack the problem. 
As have many of my colleagues, I have been reminded by my constituents 
that Federal law enforcement already has significant tools with which 
to combat terrorism--and all the new powers in this bill may not be 
necessary. Given this serious concern, I am pleased that this rule 
allows for ample time to debate the merit of the antiterrorism 
provisions of this bill--and to consider alternative proposals.

  Mr. Speaker, that being said, I believe that this bill has many 
positive aspects, most notably the important judicial reforms that were 
part of our Contract With America, passed by this house but have not 
yet become law. For example, we are going to offer victims of crime the 
opportunity to gain fair restitution. Long-overdue reform will make the 
death penalty a real punishment, ending in timely execution instead of 
the never-ending court proceedings that keep justice from being carried 
out. And marking dangerous plastic explosives will help the FBI solve 
crimes faster and more effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate 
these issues--since they matter very directly to every family in this 
country. Public safety and the security of our neighborhoods is of 
prime concern to all of us and this bill offers a solid foundation upon 
which this body can build. I look forward to the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 157, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               YEAS--251

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)

[[Page H2137]]


     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     de la Garza
     Hoke
     Laughlin
     Livingston
     McDermott
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ortiz
     Porter
     Riggs
     Rush
     Sisisky
     Stokes
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wilson

                              {time}  1220

  Messrs. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, RAHALL, and BARCIA changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60, I was unavoidably 
detained on personal business and unable to vote. However, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  1515


                          personal explanation

  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this morning I was unavoidably 
detained and missed rollcall vote No. 60 by about 1 minute. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 
376, providing for consideration of H.R. 2703, which was a general 
debate rule only, be laid on the table. This has been cleared with the 
minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2703.

                              {time}  1217


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2703) to combat terrorism, with Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this bill comes to us against the background 
of domestic and foreign terrorism that has caused countless murders of 
innocent men, women, children, and the elderly. So bloody, and so 
cowardly, a series of crimes that to ignore them and to ignore the 
frightening potential for future atrocities amounts, in my humble 
opinion, to a dereliction of duty. The World Trade Center bombing in 
New York prompted this legislation. That cost 6 lives, and it was a 
miracle that it did not cost 600. Had the bomb been placed differently, 
it might have knocked the entire building down.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is spurred by the Pan-American 103 tragedy, 
which cost 270 lives. It was spurred by Leon Klinghoffer's murder on 
the Achille Lauro; by the American hostages in Lebanon; by the use of 
chemical warfare in mass transportation in Japan; by the Oklahoma City 
bombing that cost 168 lives; by the bombings in Tel Aviv and in 
Jerusalem, and by the IRA in London.
  Mr. Chairman, as the tragedies mount, as the efforts at international 
intimidation mount, what is our response? We are told by some that we 
do not need any new laws. After all, we caught McVeigh, did we not? 
Yes, we did, we caught him speeding. Talk about lucking out.

  There is an old saying, ``God takes care of drunks, children, and the 
United States of America.'' I hate to rely on that for our future 
national security. I do view our sworn duty, and upholding our 
Constitution, not to prefer the criminals and criminal aliens, but to 
provide for the common defense within the four corners of our 
Constitution. All I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that the Members do not 
consign their common sense to certain groups who belittle what we are 
trying to do. In the end, we have to live with ourselves and how we 
vote on this life and death issue.
  What is in this bill, I would ask, Mr. Chairman? There are three 
things that ought to be of interest to all of us: the effective death 
penalty provisions, H.R.

[[Page H2138]]

729 recapitulated, and which has been passed by the Senate; that is 
habeas corpus reform. There is the Criminal Alien Deportation 
Improvements Act. That is, after a criminal alien has served his time, 
an expedited deportation of that person. There is mandatory victim 
restitution. That brings the criminals to justice and brings justice to 
the victims.
  Mr. Chairman, we have taken out, after months, and I mean 3 months at 
least and more of negotiation with people out of sympathy with every 
aspect of this bill, we have taken out emergency wiretap provisions, 
although I wish they were in. We have taken out the roving wiretap 
authority, because criminals go from one phone to another. God forbid 
that we should be able to tap into the person's conversations, rather 
than specifically to the phone, but we took that out.
  We took out military involvement in civil law enforcement provisions. 
That is where they use chemical warfare in mass transportation. We take 
that out, even though the military is probably the only organization 
available that has the technology and know-how to cope with that. We 
have taken out a definition of terrorism that they complained was 
overly expansive.
  We have taken out the funding for a domestic counterterrorism center 
that the FBI and the CIA wanted, and the Justice Department wanted. We 
have taken out funding for additional FBI personnel, as though we have 
enough FBI agents. We have taken out provisions to pay for digital 
telephony that will permit our law enforcement people to tap into 
fiber-optic wires. We will not have that capacity. We took out machine-
readable visa provisions.
  What is left in the bill? As I said, there is habeas corpus reform, 
criminal alien deportation, and mandatory victim restitution. Those are 
largely crime, rather than antiterrorist, but we do require the marking 
of plastic explosives with chemicals to aid in detecting their presence 
before they explode. If we had had that capability, we could have 
prevented PanAmerican 103 and the loss of life.
  We prohibit unlawful nuclear material transactions. There is a 
serious threat of nuclear terrorism from diverted stockpiles from the 
former Soviet Union. This is deterrence by legislation.
  We do not repeal the sixth amendment's protection of our right to 
confront our accusers in criminal cases. But, in deportation cases, 
under certain circumstances, when to confront the accused by the source 
of the information would reveal the source and compromise our security, 
there is a very useful and, I think, justifiable process in the bill to 
protect justice and at the same time protect America from alien 
terrorists. That is taken out by an amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. Chairman, this bill bars representatives and members of 
designated foreign terrorist organizations from entering the United 
States. That is taken out by the Barr amendment, which we will debate 
later.
  This does include a provision that was part of the Contract With 
America that provides a good-faith exception to the statutory 
exclusionary rule. If the court finds a law enforcement officer's 
violation of the wiretap statute was a good-faith error, the evidence 
will not be suppressed. That was taken out by the Barr amendment, which 
we will debate latter.

                              {time}  1230

  This bill incorporates the Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements 
Act, which already passed the House and we are going to try and pass it 
again. It has not passed the Senate.
  This bill changes asylum laws to avoid manipulation by terrorists.
  This bill prohibits fund-raising in the United States by designated 
foreign terrorist groups. That is stripped out of the bill by the Barr 
amendment, which we will discuss later, by way of stripping the 
designation process of who is a terrorist or a terrorist organization.
  Parenthetically, this morning's Washington Post has an interesting 
story on page A-18: ``Freeh,'' meaning Louis Freeh, the director of the 
FBI, ``Says Hamas Raising Money Here.'' That seems to me to be 
outrageous, but we will come to grips with that later in the debate 
over the amendments.
  But the people of the United States should not bankroll terrorist 
activity.
  The effective death penalty provisions are habeas corpus reform, a 
major plank in Republican anticrime policy. I can only say when a John 
Wayne Gacy murders 27 young boys and it takes 14 years from the time of 
his sentencing to the time he is executed, something is seriously wrong 
with justice. We try to correct that.
  The widow of the Secret Service agent who died in Oklahoma City, 
Diane Leonard, told us the other day, that for victims there are no 
indictments, no pretrial hearings, no trials, no appeals, no chances 
for remorse and no doubt of their innocence. Yet for those who commit 
these crimes, where there is no doubt of guilt, there is only appeal 
after appeal after appeal.
  We have the Victims' Restitution Act in here, another Contract With 
America anticrime item that previously passed 431 to 0.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a good bill here, a bill that I think is 
helpful in a situation where danger lurks internationally and 
domestically. As Israel's best friend in the world, it would be naive 
in the extreme to assume that we will not be targeted by those forces 
that are cowardly and promiscuously bombing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 
where buses and public places get bombed.
  To me it is, I hate to use the word insanity, but it is, not to be 
prepared for this. There are things we can do and we ought to do. I 
respectfully urge Members to listen to this debate. It will not be 
pleasant, it will not be easy, but it involves our national security. I 
commend it to Members' preferred attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Judiciary for opening up the discussion around a 
very sensitive and important matter. He has worked very hard on this 
matter and he feels very strongly about it. I hope we will all stay 
down on the planet, right down here on terra firma as we discuss a very 
emotional, very difficult, very sensitive, very terrible circumstance 
that this House of Representatives is called upon to try to resolve.
  I begin our part of this debate by referring all of my colleagues, 
including my chairman, to a Monday, March 11 New York Times op-ed piece 
by Anthony Lewis. It describes succinctly how terrorism wins.
  It wins by undermining the Constitution unwittingly as we rush out 
with an omnibus bag of about every anticrime piece of legislation that 
has been laying there, and we throw it all together and we throw it at 
those awful terrorists. It might help, and it will do some good, and 
there are some good parts of the bill that was authored by the chairman 
of the Committee on Judiciary.
  Another piece that I refer to the gentleman is the New York Times 
editorial dated today: ``The Wrong Answer To Terrorism.'' We are going 
to discuss this, because there are several proposals on the floor 
today. One is the Hyde-Barr bill passed in the Committee on Judiciary. 
One is the Barr bill, which is not antithetical to the Hyde-Barr bill, 
but they go along together in some parts and they fly apart in some 
places. I will leave them to explain where there are similarities and 
differences.

  But I would like to bring to Members' attention that the bill that 
many of us are supporting has some very important, good features of the 
Hyde provision in it, identical. I would like to recite them at the 
very outset of the debate, because our chairman has made a number of 
comments that I will be commenting again on with more particularity.
  He has talked about the Victims' Restitution Act. It is good. We 
support it. He has it, we have it, ``we'' being the Conyers-Nadler 
substitute that will come up at the end of this debate.
  We check off one. We both agree on that.
  We have significant other agreements in antiterrorism. We both agree 
that we should have prohibitions on providing material support for 
terrorists and on fund-raising efforts on their behalf.

[[Page H2139]]

  He cited Hamas. I cite Hamas. I agree that we should not allow 
terrorist to raise funds and we should not provide material support for 
their fund-raising efforts where there could be confusion of whether 
they are charitable or not charitable. We think that there should be 
very careful, precise distinctions made about that. I think we may do a 
better job in the substitute than the chairman's bill, but that is what 
we are here to figure out this afternoon.
  There are new criminal provisions in both bills protecting Federal 
employees and their families, prohibiting the sale of nuclear materials 
and the threatened use of weapons of mass destruction, and new criminal 
provisions for combating terrorism overseas. It is in the Hyde-Barr 
bill, it is in the Conyers-Nadler bill. Identical provisions. We agree. 
There is no dispute about that. We think these are effective remedies.
  Another area of agreement: Increased criminal penalties for burning 
or bombing Federal property. Agreement. Conspiring to take hostages and 
commit air piracy, increase the criminal penalties. Agreement. 
Transferring explosive material knowing it will be used to commit a 
crime of violence, increase the penalties. We agree.
  We also, on our last point of agreement, have both determined that 
there should be enhanced investigative authority given to parts of our 
Government. In the area of requiring the marking of plastic explosives, 
more investigative authority. In the area of requiring telephone 
companies to preserve their records for at least 3 months, more 
investigative authority. And in authorizing monetary awards to assist 
in the prosecution of felony cases, more enhanced authority. It is in 
the Hyde-Barr bill, it is in the Conyers-Nadler bill. Agreement, point 
after point after point after point after point after point.
  But I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the substitute bill is 
tougher on terrorists than the Hyde-Barr bill in two key respects:
  First, in our bill we make it a crime to target children when 
engaging in an act of terrorism, thereby specifically responding to the 
shocking crime in Oklahoma City. We make it an additional crime to 
target children when engaging in the act of terrorism. Then we include 
even stronger protections for American citizens who are the victims of 
violence in terrorist States like Libya. How? By allowing suits against 
terrorist nations to be brought directly in an American court.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite all of our colleagues to 
inquire, which bill is more effective? Which one has more expanded 
authority? Which one has more increased criminal penalties? And which 
one has more new criminal provisions, as we wind our way through this 
debate?
  Mr. Chairman, I concede that the Hyde-Barr bill came out first, so it 
was easier for us to improve on their bill than for them to improve on 
our bill. We might say we are the new, final, refined, updated version 
on the subject. We are the latest product of a lot of hard work that 
went into these bills and these provisions by the members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that 80 percent of the people of the 
country in one way or another have registered their support of the 
imposition of the death penalty for those vicious types of cases that 
too often find their way into the headlines of our newspapers and on 
the evening television news. We have tried mightily from the very 
beginning to make sure that the Federal establishment has a workable 
death penalty on the statute books.
  When I first came to the Congress, I was appalled by the then 
Committee on the Judiciary, of which the gentleman from Michigan was a 
potent part, where the Democrat-controlled committee smacked down every 
conceivable attempt we made at trying to install a Federal death 
penalty to cover, of all things, assassination of the President, God 
forbid, and felony murders, multiple murders, all these heinous crimes 
that occur on a daily basis. Anyway, it took us until 1988 with a 
parliamentary maneuver to make an entry into this field by having the 
House approve, at long last, a death penalty for at least those drug 
dealers who kill in the furtherance of their enterprise.
  We were joyous in the fact that we made this breakthrough and that we 
had this deterrent effect on the books, after long last. But then we 
are faced with another phenomenon.

                              {time}  1245

  It appears that the inmates on death row who have been convicted of 
these horrible killings are able to escape the final justice, to escape 
the noose, as it were, by filing appeal after appeal after appeal, 
sometimes lasting on inmates row, on death row for as long as 15 years.
  Those same statistics that show that 80 percent of the American 
people want the death penalty properly applied, that same statistic, 
also yields an outrage on the part of the American people at the 
inability of the final word to be placed on the killer on death row.
  What the provisions in this bill do is to limit the number of appeals 
that can be filed by the inmate so that justice can be served. That 
inmate will then meet his justice at the hands of the Federal 
Government even though he will have tried to avoid justice.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has been on the committee since he 
arrived in the Congress, has worked on these matters with great 
diligence.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the senior minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, who made such a good statement. I 
appreciate his reminding me that I have been on the committee, because 
I could have sworn I was on the committee. I went to a lot of meetings 
of something that I was told was the Committee on the Judiciary, and I 
was voting on something called the terrorism bill, but then I see the 
bill that is on the floor today, and it is not the bill that we worked 
on in committee.
  I very much regret the way the leadership of the House, and I do not 
believe this is a decision of the committee leadership, I am talking 
about the House leadership, the House leadership and the Committee on 
Rules. I regret the way they are systematically denigrating the work of 
the committee. That is not simply a matter of jurisdiction of turf, it 
is a matter of legislative procedure that goes to substance.
  We are dealing here with about as important a set of issues as we 
can. How does a democratic society committee to democracy, committed to 
individual rights, committed to openness, deal with the murderous 
threat of a small handful of people, internationally based, who are 
trying to wreak harm in that society? There can be no more important or 
more difficult task than to arm the law enforcement people, the decent 
and hard-working and well-intentioned law enforcement people of this 
country, with the tools that allow them to counter the terrorists who 
are increasingly a worldwide group, although obviously our domestic 
people contributed sadly a great deal to this, how do you arm them 
while at the same time preserving democracy and individual rights? That 
is a process that takes some balance.
  I did not agree with everything in the bill that came out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, but the chairman presided over a very fair 
markup, gave consideration to legislation on the merits offered to 
amendments, and that bill came out that I voted for because I thought 
it achieved that balance, and then once it was no longer in the hands 
of the committee and the committee leadership, the Republican 
leadership made the decision that they had to conciliate their own 
right wing, and we therefore have a bill today which is so different 
than the bill that came out of committee.
  Let me give you an example. One of the provisions that was in the 
committee bill, and it was narrowed in committee. I did not agree with 
the narrowing. That is the way the committee process worked out. It 
allowed the Attorney General of the United States to call on the U.S. 
military if she could certify that she had no civilian expertise and 
needed military expertise to

[[Page H2140]]

deal with certain weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical 
weapons.
  That was included in the committee bill. It was narrowed in 
committee, but no one in committee even moved to knock it out. Lo and 
behold, words I do not often get to use, lo and behold, the bill comes 
on the floor of the House, and that language is missing.
  I went to the Committee on Rules yesterday and said I have an 
amendment. I would like to restore to the bill language that was in 
committee, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules said, well, it is 
not germane. Language that the committee adopted modified, giving the 
Attorney General of the United States the ability to call on the 
military of the United States for expertise if she can find that 
expertise nowhere else, specifically, said the military cannot arrest, 
the military cannot do detention, the military expertise, special 
expertise in weapons of mass destruction can be made available.
  It was in the committee bill. The right wing, sadly, tragically, 
increasingly, regards the U.S. armed services to some extent as a bad 
guy. It is a very interesting factor here. Why did language empowering 
the Attorney General to ask the U.S. military for assistance that was 
in the committee bill not only disappear but it is not germane, it is 
not allowable to be offered? Because the right wing had to be 
palliated. The right wing, maybe they thought these military people 
were going to come in black helicopters. I do not know what paranoia on 
the American right that is involved here. I know it is tragic the 
Committee on the Judiciary was compelled by its leadership to give in. 
We are going to see this with the immigration bill, by the way. We had 
a very good process on the immigration bill once again. Once it left 
the Committee on the Judiciary, where the chairman presided over a fair 
and deliberative markup and we came up with a bill, balanced, although 
some liked it, some did not, it leaves the committee, and right wing 
pressures are applied through the Republican leadership to change, and 
presto chango, how things happen, things disappear, things appear, and 
this terrorism bill, things affirmed in committee have been knocked 
out. Things not in are put back in. Things in the committee with 
amendment, amended, and it is critical for this reason: We need to draw 
a balance.

  I am in favor of enhanced law enforcement powers to deal with 
terrorism, but I want those powers to be accompanied by safeguards 
tailored to make sure the powers are exercised well. I want judicial 
review in a reasonable way. I want people who may have had their rights 
interfered with able to sue in reasonable fora.
  I voted for the bill in committee. I am going to have to wait and see 
how we vote on this. We no longer have the careful product from the 
committee. We have something that has been jerked out of shape by the 
leadership of this House giving in to right wing pressure.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2703, and since this is 
general debate, I want to say, meaning no pun whatsoever, that I am 
generally in favor of this bill. I think some further modifications are 
still indicated, and I intend to vote for some of the amendments that 
are being offered here today.
  However, I believe that we should pass H.R. 2703 and move on this 
front. I think international terrorism is a reality. It has happened in 
the United States. It is happening all over the world. It is something 
that we are going to have to do ever stronger efforts in order to 
confront.
  I want to say that the Federal Government has the chief 
responsibility in countering threats against this country that 
originate from outside of this country. Other than modifications, 
which, as I have indicated, some of which I support, I have heard two 
general objections to this bill. One is why do we need to give the 
Federal Government any more responsibility, since a terrorist act by 
definition, when it occurs, would violate State law? In other words, if 
a bomb is set, a bomb goes off, that would violate the law in any State 
of the United States. Of course, it would. But I can tell you from a 
career in State and local law enforcement that State and local law 
enforcement simply is not geared to do the intelligence and 
investigation of processes that would be necessary to try to counter 
foreign-based terrorism.
  Second of all, the argument has been raised that there have been 
certain events where law enforcement procedures may have been abused by 
Federal law enforcement agencies, and portions of incidents at Waco and 
Ruby Ridge are argued, and indeed law enforcement, I think, in both of 
those incidents fell short. But that does not mean that we do not give 
law enforcement responsibility to act because there are problems, 
because there are problems in every law enforcement agency. We clear up 
those problems, and we move forward when we have to, and I believe this 
bill does so.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], an able member of this subcommittee, a 
practicing attorney for decades.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time on this important subject, and I want to 
congratulate the members of the Committee on the Judiciary who have 
dealt with this very difficult issue over a period of time and tried to 
craft a bill that has a sense of balance to the in the face of a lot of 
emotionalism that exists on these issues.
  I think the chairman of our committee, Chairman Hyde, has framed the 
issue in this debate a little bit differently than I would frame it. He 
has said the issue is do we need a bill or some additional laws in the 
area of international terrorism? I think if you polled every Member of 
this body, you would get no dispute on that issue. All of us would 
agree that additional laws are needed to address this dynamic and 
changing area that we historically have not had to deal with in this 
country.
  So the issue is not do we need additional laws. The way I would frame 
the issue is not do we need additional laws, the question is do we need 
these laws that are being proposed in this particular bill. And I will 
submit to you that there are some very, very troubling aspects to this 
bill. What we are called upon to do really is to draw a balance between 
the need for additional laws to address terrorism and, on the other 
hand, the individual rights that individual citizens in the United 
States are guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of 
America.
  When we are stepping across the bounds to make new laws that 
substantially cut back on our individual rights and freedoms in this 
country, then we must begin to ask the question, what price are we 
willing to pay in terms of our individual rights and freedoms? What 
price are we willing to pay as citizens of this country to make 
ourselves more secure?
  Now, let me illustrate this to you. We can build walls around 
everybody in this country. We can take away all of our individual 
rights that are guaranteed to us in the Constitution and lock everybody 
up whether they have committed any crime or not, and none of those 
people inside those walls or in those jails who have been deprived of 
their rights can commit any crimes.
  But are we willing to pay that price? Are we willing to pay that 
price for security? Because the more we take away our rights and lock 
people up without giving them due process and take away the right of 
habeas corpus that protects the individual citizen when the Government 
is engaged in some illegal act, the more we have moved toward a 
totalitarian society and away from the democratic society which is so 
important to each and every one of us.
  So as we listen to this debate, I encourage all of my colleagues to 
constantly think about what this balance ought to be. What price am I 
willing to pay as an individual citizen in terms of my own individual 
rights and freedoms and liberties and protections? What price am I 
willing to pay to address this issue? And if we can arrive at some 
appropriate balance, then that is where we ought to be going in this 
bill.

[[Page H2141]]

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today in a position that 
I never would have envisioned for myself when I was elected to 
Congress. I am here today as a champion of habeas corpus reform. This 
is not because I have had a change of heart, but because of the 
heartbreak of the people of my State.
  April 19, 1995, the day of the ruthless bombing of the Alfred P. 
Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, will be etched in the minds 
of all Americans for years to come. To the people of Oklahoma, and 
especially to the families of the 168 people that died in the bombing, 
this year has been especially long and difficult as we have tried to 
begin the process of healing and putting our lives back together.
  An important part of the healing process for the survivors will be to 
see that those who committed this heinous crime are punished. The 
habeas corpus reform that is included in this bill will ensure that 
those who committed this crime will not be able to delay punishment 
through endless appeals.
  Last week, many of you had the opportunity to meet with the 
Oklahomans who have suffered the most in the past months. They are real 
people with real stories. For example, there is Clint Seidl, an 8-year-
old boy who will never see his mother again or Nicole and Kylie 
Williams. Nicole's husband Scott was making a delivery to the Federal 
building that fateful day. Nicole was 6 months pregnant at that time 
and now Kylie will never know her father.
  The message of these victims and survivors is that they will never 
see their loved ones again, while those who committed this heinous 
crime, if convicted, will. And even if they are sentenced to death, 
they could languish on death row for as long as 17 years. I believe a 
fellow Oklahoman, Diane Leonard, who lost her husband in the bombing, 
said it best. She said, ``The victims had no judge, no jury, no 
pretrial hearing, no trial, no defense, no appeals, no convictions 
except that found in a sick mind. My husband and others were executed 
with no dignity, no time to prepare, no chance to repent, no 
opportunity for their family to know of their love or to be reassured 
of their families' love for them. They had no guarantee of a painless 
and swift death. These innocent were left to linger and die in the 
rubble.''
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about these victims and preventing what 
happened to them from ever happening again in this country. I stand 
here today and say enough is enough. Support fundamental habeas corpus 
reform. Support mandatory victim restitution. Support closed-circuit 
broadcasting of the Oklahoma City bombing trial for its victims. 
Support H.R. 2703.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is known as the accuracy in debate portion of our 
activities on the floor today.
  The chairman says that somebody is telling him we need no new laws. 
Now, maybe somebody is, but nobody on the Committee on the Judiciary 
that I know of has been telling anybody that, Republican or Democrat. I 
think everybody knows we need new laws.
  The question, sir, is, what new laws, which new laws?
  Now, I know we have to refer to the Oklahoma City tragedy, the 
Klinghoffer, Achille Lauro, and other terrorist activities. Hamas will 
be mentioned 999 times today, and maybe it should be. But what do these 
have to do with habeas corpus?
  Here, Chairman Hyde, is where you went wrong, because you made this a 
grab bag crime bill and lost sight of the fact that this is an 
antiterrorist piece of legislation of the first moment. So you gathered 
up every old sack of legislation that has been laying around. And since 
you thought you were on a fast track, you stuck it on.
  Here is the first train coming out of the station. Well, we have been 
debating habeas corpus for 10 years. Stick it on. Let us go get the 
death penalty. Stick it on. Let us get alien deportation. We have 
immigration coming up. But stick it on.
  Now you are paying for it, because you have got a junk bag crime 
bill, and not what we came here for today, namely, a bill to fight 
terrorism. Because I have got the best antiterrorist bill that will hit 
this floor today, the strongest, the most effective, the one with the 
most additional penalties. And you have got a great crime bill that 
ought to be debated some other place, some other time. And that is the 
problem.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says somebody took wiretaps out. Well, 
read the bill. We did not take wiretaps out. That is an inaccurate 
statement.
  We have got plenty of good things in here, and I just want to close 
with one: Prohibiting material support to terrorist organizations. That 
is in my bill: Prohibiting the providing of material support or 
resources to organizations designated as terrorist by the Secretary of 
State. But it provides expedited judicial review of that designation in 
a hearing in which the organization will have the opportunity to call 
witnesses and present evidence in rebuttal of that designation.
  You do not mind that, do you? We are in America. Since when can one 
Cabinet official come up with a list? Do you not remember the McCarthy 
era, sir? That is what the Attorney General did. Now here we are within 
the same generation coughing up the same nonsense. And we say, ``Well, 
let's give people a chance to rebut the designation.''
  What for? I would not want the Secretary of State Buchanan 
designating who is a terrorist organization in this country, America, 
anytime soon. I do not really think most of the Members do either.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself this time simply to express my profound 
appreciation for being instructed by the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan. I always learn when he talks.
  However, I beg to disagree. I think terrorists who kill ought to die, 
and they ought not to linger for 16 or 17 years. That is why habeas 
corpus is in there.
  I commend the text of the bill to my friend. He said one cabinet 
officer can come up with a list of terrorist organizations. No, it is 
the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Attorney General. That 
is two, the last time I looked. They come up with the evidence, they 
submit it to Congress, the facts behind it, and a judicial review is 
available to the organization or the person. So I commend the text to 
my friend.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the learned gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
foreign sovereign immunity amendments contained in this legislation. We 
must make foreign state sponsors of terrorism responsible for their 
actions. Recent events make clear now more than ever the grave threat 
posed by international terrorism to the interests of the United States 
at home and abroad. Outlaw states continue to serve as sponsors and 
promoters of this reprehensible activity, providing safe haven, 
training, weapons, and other support to terrorists.
  Terrorists are responsible for the deaths of our citizens and other 
innocent civilians in senseless acts of violence and the destruction of 
property throughout the world. You will recall, with horror and 
profound grief, the murders aboard the Achille Lauro cruise liner, the 
bombing of Pan AM Flight 103, the World Trade Center bombing and the 
four recent bombings in the State of Israel. The list of other such 
shameful and cowardly acts is endless.
  In addition to the horrible human and economic costs of terrorism, it 
is also a serious attack on United States foreign policy across the 
globe. Terrorist acts create instability, detract from our efforts to 
secure peace, and directly assault the United States and our closest 
allies.
  We cannot tolerate support for terrorism from foreign governments. No 
member of the community of nations should condone or assist such 
reprehensible violence. And no foreign state should be able to hide 
behind its immunity as a sovereign government to avoid having to pay 
the consequences of supporting terrorism. Accordingly, I introduced 
H.R. 1877, the State-Sponsored Terrorism Responsibility Act to

[[Page H2142]]

allow American victims to have a means of redress in the courts. I am 
pleased to see that under Chairman Hyde's leadership, this measure has 
been included in the legislation before us today.
  We must make a clear statement that support for terrorism is 
unacceptable in the international community. Allowing lawsuits against 
nations which aid terrorists will allow us to increase the pressure 
against these outlaw states which would deprive our citizens, our 
Nation, and our allies of their freedom and safety.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I listened to my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle say we have debated habeas corpus reform for 10 
years. I think that is plenty of time. If we debate it another 4 years, 
that will be about the average time that a convicted murderer sits on 
death row before his sentence is executed, if that occurs in that 
amount of time, 14 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington to shape legislation to reflect a 
reliable sense of right and wrong. But when murderers who rape or 
kidnap their victims are convicted and sentenced to death, it is wrong 
to delay their sentence year in and year out with appeals challenging 
the constitutionality of their conviction. It is not uncommon, as I 
mentioned before, for criminals to be clothed, fed, and housed for 14 
years while their habeas appeals are considered.
  Put yourself in the place of a parent of a murdered child. That 
parent must deal with the pain and the loss, and know full well that 
their child's killer is escaping the sentence decided by a fair jury. 
This is cruel and unusual punishment.
  Habeas corpus reform contained in this bill limits the number and 
purposes of habeas petitions, and it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] who has served as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime for many years and is still its 
ranking member, and a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the ranking 
member, for his generous yielding of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I wanted 
to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], for the fair and 
balanced bill he has brought to the House today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to see even a tougher law. Certain 
provisions that belong in this bill were knocked out, but I still 
strongly support the bill. It presents us with a clear choice between 
two courses of action: We can reject extremism and its spawn of 
terrorist violence, or we can give in to overblown fantasies of 
Government oppression that have been advanced against this bill by the 
fringes on both our right and our left.
  The great moderate mainstream of this House can stand up, unite 
across party lines, and pass this bill. We can reject the creeping 
paranoia that encourages any nut with a gun and a grudge to take up 
arms and terrorize the rest of us. Or we can pretend we are powerless 
to stop the bombing of children and the murder of innocent men and 
women in future terrorist violence. These are our choices, and they are 
crystal clear.
  Now, I understand and sympathize with the legitimate concerns of 
those who say we should be careful to protect our liberties as we 
consider this bill. I share their concerns. I supported and sponsored 
amendments that are built into this bill to help meet our shared 
concerns, and I am absolutely convinced that as this bill stands before 
us today, it has been well crafted to protect those liberties.
  But what I do not understand and what I do not share are the extreme 
hypotheticals that extreme advocates who have lobbied this House from 
both the right and the left have invented to oppose this bill. Anyone 
can dream up these tortured fantasies. Anyone can invent an extreme 
hypothetical under which someone, somewhere, somehow will be treated 
unfairly by Federal laws we pass. These may be interesting academic 
exercises for law professors, but we cannot allow these tortured 
fantasies to paralyze Congress and the Nation. We have to balance.
  If there were no bombings at all, no terrorism at all, we would not 
need this bill at all. If there were bombings everyday, we would need 
even much stronger action. I do not want us to be too late with too 
little. Everything is a balance. You cannot, cannot, do nothing without 
some hypothetical coming up there and rearing its head.

                              {time}  1315

  I originally introduced the terrorism legislation similar to this 
last year before the Oklahoma City bombing. People then said we are 
overreacting. Oklahoma City proved them wrong.
  What will we say if America suffers another such catastrophe? The 
point is that we already had a process that built safeguard after 
safeguard into the bill. We have had enough deliberation, enough 
debate. It is time to act. This bill does not trample our rights. 
Terrorism, terrorist violence, tramples our rights. Terrorist violence 
is not a clever hypothetical; it is a harsh fact.
  Go be briefed by the FBI counter-terrorism unit and find out what is 
going on in America. Ask the survivors of the bombings of Pan Am flight 
103 and the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City. These terrorists are 
raising money in this country today; they are using that money to blow 
up children and innocent people. They hate America and all it stands 
for, and they will hurt us again and again and again unless we give law 
enforcement reasonable tools to stop them.
  Make no mistake; terrorism from overseas is real, terrorism from 
these shores is real. They are real, not hypothetical.
  So, my colleagues, we must act. We must act.
  I would ask my colleagues, all of them, which is the greater threat? 
A fanciful hypothetical under which the Attorney General of the United 
States turns into a power-mad rogue using this law to go after the Girl 
Scouts, or some sick, twisted terrorist willing to be able to blow up 
children sleeping in their nursery? Both are horrible scenarios. Which 
one is the more real? That is what I would ask my colleagues to weigh.
  And so in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a hard, cold, strong, 
balanced, and effective response to the fact of terrorism. This bill 
provides it. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, because 
we will not pass this bill without help from both sides of the aisle, 
to answer the plea of the overwhelming majority of Americans and vote 
for this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds because our 
distinguished colleague from New York was not on the floor. I want to 
commend to him Anthony Lewis' op-ed of March 11, 1996, which pointed 
out how terrorism wins when we undermine the Constitution, and today's 
New York Times editorial, which is entitled ``The Wrong Answer to 
Terrorism,'' and I think they were referring to the bill that he 
champions.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, the New York Times is a great newspaper, 
but even they sometimes are wrong.
  Mr. CONYERS. But not when it comes to you, sir.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the New York Times editorial was wrong, and I will be 
happy to show my colleague where they are not quite up to speed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Indian [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] for yielding this time to me. Let me compliment the gentleman on 
a lot of great work on this bill. It has taken a lot to get through the 
committee, and we still have a lot of ground yet to cover. The Senate 
passed theirs last week. I compliment the chairman on permitting a 
cooling-off process after the Oklahoma City bombing so we could move 
legislation with good intellect, and thought and reflection.

[[Page H2143]]

  I believe that the threat to Americans from international acts of 
terror is very real. From 1990 to 1994, Mr. Chairman, 40 percent of 
reported international terrorist acts worldwide were directed against 
United States' interests. Although many Americans do not realize the 
risk, U.S. citizens and their property are the targets of choice, often 
called soft targets. They are either business sites or tourist sites. 
Because of our status as a world superpower, our economic success and 
our military prowess, we have, in fact, acquired adversaries throughout 
the world. Whether we like it or not, we must face the dark truth, that 
there are those who wish us ill on not only our system of liberty, 
freedom and justice, but that of the American people. These groups or 
individuals can be highly structured or have more loose networks, but 
their aim is the same, to disrupt our systems, thwart our democratic 
policies. Unfortunately these groups do not hold life in the same light 
as we do and are willing to use innocents to further their aims.
  In this bill also is the effective death penalty, and I think that is 
extremely important. We have individuals who serve on death row for 
life. What an oxymoron. I think that it is extremely important that we 
also send a message that those that participate in acts of terror, 
indiscriminate acts of cowardly terror, should experience the death 
penalty.
  I know that there will be a great debate here on the floor of what to 
take from the bill and what to leave in the bill. Recognize that there 
is a process left here. I think that to my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle it is important to move this bill, and let us get it to 
conference. But the most extremely important is let us have a good, 
effective bill. If we absolutely live in fear, then we have no freedom. 
So if we have the World Trade Center bombing, and we have it repeated, 
or the Oklahoma City bombing, and it is repeated, we are living in fear 
and, therefore, we really cannot enjoy freedom or liberty.
  So when we as a people hold the power and we then extend the 
Government to insure that we protect ourselves, it is called national 
security. We think of national security so often internationally, but 
it is also domestic.
  I compliment the chairman for this bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, Islamic fundamentalists are good people, by and large, 
but there is a radical group of them that control a country called Iran 
and control a country called Sudan who have a vision of the world that 
is quite different from ours. They have a vision of controlling with 
their movement a Messianic totalitarian movement, a southern Europe, 
the Middle East, northern Africa, the Near East, all the way through 
India, and over to much of where the Philippines is today, through 
Southeast Asia, because they believe it is their destiny to do that. 
They do not think the same way that we do about matters, and they see 
the United States, in particular, as standing in their way to do this, 
and they use terrorism as the means of trying to accomplish their end 
and to drive us out of a region where we have an obligation to be, 
where we have national security interests that require our being there 
in those regions of the world where they want to be dominant and where 
we have national security interests that dictate preventing a Messianic 
totalitarian organizational scheme of things from controlling the 
matters at hand. They are, therefore, going to continue to try to bring 
terrorism into the United States.
  And that is why this legislation is so darned important. It is 
absolutely incredibly important that we pass this bill today.
  I hope people understand what is really in here. The guts of this 
bill have to do with cutting off their ability to raise money in the 
United States, not just to raise it as in organizations, but to get 
material support for terrorists individually who may be in this country 
by giving them lodging, by giving them free rides to the airport, by 
providing them with explosives, or whatever else. We have created new 
crimes in here and new punishments in order to aid us in trying to stop 
this kind of terrorist act coming from abroad into the United States. 
This is a terribly important bill.
  In addition to what it does in that regard, this bill also contains 
three provisions from the Contract With America that are also critical: 
the death penalty provision, the provision that says finally, after all 
these years, we are going to pass a law that ends the seemingly endless 
appeals that death row inmates have so that we can begin to carry out 
their sentences much sooner than we have been, not by ending all right 
to appeal at all, but by making the appeals responsible so that when 
they finish their ordinary appeals from their conviction they can only 
go into Federal court one time under routine circumstances and say, 
hey, I did not get a lawyer who fairly represented me, or I did not get 
a proper jury being picked, or there was something irregular. They can 
go in under what is known as habeas corpus one time and one time only, 
and that will be it, and we will not have 15- and 20-year delays of 
carrying out of the death penalty again, and we can put some 
determinate sentencing back into place and send a message to criminals 
again that when they do the crime, if it is bad enough, they are going 
to get the death penalty. And we have victim restitution from that 
Contract With America to mandate at the Federal level paying money back 
from the criminals to the victims, and we have in here a criminal alien 
deportation provision that we passed earlier that we are attaching to 
this bill that is very fundamental to both the terrorist threat and to 
getting the aliens out of this country more quickly who may come here, 
and many times the threats to our national security from abroad come in 
the form of those who are here in some fashion who should be deported 
and should not be allowed to hang around.

  I cannot overemphasize the importance of this.
  I also want to make one point; that I am disappointed to compromise 
with some who saw things of mischief in this bill that was not there 
that we had taken out, and I did not get the opportunity under the rule 
to offer an amendment which would have handled the problem with 
wiretapping that really should not have the emotion it has today in 
this bill. The truth of the matter is that today we have an ability for 
our Federal Bureau of Investigation to go to a judge to get a 
wiretapping order to tap a phone. We should be giving him the power and 
the FBI the power to go to the court and ask the judge permission to 
follow the bad guy, whoever he is, because we have portable phones, we 
have cellular phones, et cetera, and that is all that that provision 
that was taken out of this bill would have done. But it is out of the 
bill, so those who are worried about somehow undermining civil 
liberties can rest assured that this bill does not do it.
  But what is in this bill is very, very important to fighting 
terrorism, and we need to pass the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], a cosponsor of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1\1/4\ 
minutes.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into how desperate the 
situation is and how important it is that we pass a strong and tough 
antiterrorism bill. I think everybody here agrees on that. The question 
is what is an effective antiterrorism bill that will effectively fight 
terrorism without doing violence to the liberties of the American 
people.
  That is the question before us, and we do not have to make speeches 
about how important a bill is. We know that; we all know that. Let me 
simply suggest, and I will have to speak later in greater detail, that 
to have tough-sounding provisions in a bill that are unconstitutional 
and, therefore, unenforceable gives us the illusion of being tough, but 
not the reality of doing anything about the problem, and that is one of 
the problems of the bill that we solve in the Conyers-Nadler-Berman 
substitute.

[[Page H2144]]

  Second, we will talk later about some of the real civil liberties 
problems. We cannot have a procedure for deporting aliens who are 
allegedly terrorists where they have no opportunity to cross-examine 
their accusers, no opportunity to see the evidence against them, no 
opportunity even to know the specific charges, and that is possible 
under this bill, and that provision is rewritten to provide basic due 
process in the substitute that we will be talking about later.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my support to Chairman Hyde 
for his work in the area of antiterrorism. It has been 1 year since the 
bombing attack in Oklahoma and over 2 years since the bombing of the 
World Trade Center in New York. In an effort to help protect against 
such events from happening again, we have before us today a measure 
that will ensure the protection of both our Nation's citizens and its 
borders.
  Included in H.R. 2703 are many important provisions aimed at 
combating terrorism here at home and around the world. First is a 
provision establishing criminal asset forfeiture authority for visa and 
passport offenses. This initiative comes about after the revelation 
that 9 of 35 Federal indictment counts in the World Trade Center 
bombing were for visa and passport fraud, with the criminal penalties 
no more than a mere slap on the wrist. Initially we changed this in the 
103d Congress. This is the next logical step.
  Second is waiver authority of written notice based upon denial of 
certain visa applications, allowing the FBI, DEA, and other law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies to share data with the State 
Department for visa denial purposes, without disclosure to alien 
applicants who have no right to enter the United States. It will also 
encourage greater information sharing.
  Third is an expansion of nuclear material prohibitions to cover 
nuclear material no one had ever envisioned would be in commerce before 
the fall of the Soviet Union, which is very similar to provisions in a 
bill I introduced at the beginning of the 103d Congress. Finally, the 
bill will allow the FBI to conduct police training in the former Soviet 
Union and abroad.
  It is imperative that Congress do all it can to combat terrorist 
attacks, both overseas and here at home. Some may argue that we can 
approve a better bill than H.R. 2703. However, as a member who 
represents families that lost relatives with the tragic Pan Am 103 
bombing, and as chairman of the International Relations Committee, I am 
confident that the bill we consider today will provide adequate tools 
to assist our law enforcement community in combating terrorism and will 
not infringe upon our constitutional rights.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2703 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2703

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Antiterrorism 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                         TITLE I--CRIMINAL ACTS

Sec. 101. Protection of Federal employees.
Sec. 102. Prohibiting material support to terrorist organizations.
Sec. 103. Modification of material support provision.
Sec. 104. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
Sec. 105. Conspiracy to harm people and property overseas.
Sec. 106. Clarification and extension of criminal jurisdiction over 
              certain terrorism offenses overseas.
Sec. 107. Expansion and modification of weapons of mass destruction 
              statute.
Sec. 108. Addition of offenses to the money laundering statute.
Sec. 109. Expansion of Federal jurisdiction over bomb threats.
Sec. 110. Clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction.
Sec. 111. Possession of stolen explosives prohibited.
Sec. 112. Study to determine standards for determining what ammunition 
              is capable of penetrating police body armor.

                     TITLE II--INCREASED PENALTIES

Sec. 201. Mandatory minimum for certain explosives offenses.
Sec. 202. Increased penalty for explosive conspiracies.
Sec. 203. Increased and alternate conspiracy penalties for terrorism 
              offenses.
Sec. 204. Mandatory penalty for transferring a firearm knowing that it 
              will be used to commit a crime of violence.
Sec. 205. Mandatory penalty for transferring an explosive material 
              knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of 
              violence.
Sec. 206. Directions to Sentencing Commission.

                     TITLE III--INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS

Sec. 301. Pen registers and trap and trace devices in foreign 
              counterintelligence investigations.
Sec. 302. Disclosure of certain consumer reports to the Federal Bureau 
              of Investigation.
Sec. 303. Disclosure of business records held by third parties in 
              foreign counterintelligence cases.
Sec. 304. Study of tagging explosive materials, detection of explosives 
              and explosive materials, rendering explosive components 
              inert, and imposing controls of precursors of explosives.
Sec. 305. Application of statutory exclusionary rule concerning 
              intercepted wire or oral communications.
Sec. 306. Exclusion of certain types of information from wiretap-
              related definitions.
Sec. 307. Access to telephone billing records.
Sec. 308. Requirement to preserve record evidence.
Sec. 309. Detention hearing.
Sec. 310. Reward authority of the Attorney General.
Sec. 311. Protection of Federal Government buildings in the District of 
              Columbia.
Sec. 312. Study of thefts from armories; report to the Congress.

                      TITLE IV--NUCLEAR MATERIALS

Sec. 401. Expansion of nuclear materials prohibitions.

        TITLE V--CONVENTION ON THE MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Requirement of detection agents for plastic explosives.
Sec. 503. Criminal sanctions.
Sec. 504. Exceptions.
Sec. 505. Effective date.

                TITLE VI--IMMIGRATION-RELATED PROVISIONS

                Subtitle A--Removal of Alien Terrorists

            Part 1--Removal Procedures for Alien Terrorists

Sec. 601. Removal procedures for alien terrorists.
Sec. 602. Funding for detention and removal of alien terrorists.

      Part 2--Exclusion and Denial of Asylum for Alien Terrorists

Sec. 611. Membership in terrorist organization as ground for exclusion.
Sec. 612. Denial of asylum to alien terrorists.
Sec. 613. Denial of other relief for alien terrorists.

                    Subtitle B--Expedited Exclusion

Sec. 621. Inspection and exclusion by immigration officers.
Sec. 622. Judicial review.
Sec. 623. Exclusion of aliens who have not been inspected and admitted.

            Subtitle C--Improved Information and Processing

                     Part 1--Immigration Procedures

Sec. 631. Access to certain confidential INS files through court order.
Sec. 632. Waiver authority concerning notice of denial of application 
              for visas.

        Part 2--Asset Forfeiture for Passport and Visa Offenses

Sec. 641. Criminal forfeiture for passport and visa related offenses.
Sec. 642. Subpoenas for bank records.
Sec. 643. Effective date.

    Subtitle D--Employee Verification by Security Services Companies

Sec. 651. Permitting security services companies to request additional 
              documentation.

          Subtitle E--Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements

Sec. 661. Short title.
Sec. 662. Additional expansion of definition of aggravated felony.
Sec. 663. Deportation procedures for certain criminal aliens who are 
              not permanent residents.
Sec. 664. Restricting the defense to exclusion based on 7 years 
              permanent residence for certain criminal aliens.
Sec. 665. Limitation on collateral attacks on underlying deportation 
              order.
Sec. 666. Criminal alien identification system.
Sec. 667. Establishing certain alien smuggling-related crimes as RICO-
              predicate offenses.
Sec. 668. Authority for alien smuggling investigations.
Sec. 669. Expansion of criteria for deportation for crimes of moral 
              turpitude.
Sec. 670. Payments to political subdivisions for costs of incarcerating 
              illegal aliens.
Sec. 671. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 672. Construction of expedited deportation requirements.

[[Page H2145]]

Sec. 673. Study of prisoner transfer treaty with Mexico.
Sec. 674. Justice Department assistance in bringing to justice aliens 
              who flee prosecution for crimes in the United States.
Sec. 675. Prisoner transfer treaties.
Sec. 676. Interior repatriation program.
Sec. 677. Deportation of nonviolent offenders prior to completion of 
              sentence of imprisonment.

                  TITLE VII--AUTHORIZATION AND FUNDING

Sec. 701. Firefighter and emergency services training.
Sec. 702. Assistance to foreign countries to procure explosive 
              detection devices and other counter-terrorism technology.
Sec. 703. Research and development to support counter-terrorism 
              technologies.

                       TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 801. Study of State licensing requirements for the purchase and 
              use of high explosives.
Sec. 802. Compensation of victims of terrorism.
Sec. 803. Jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist States.
Sec. 804. Study of publicly available instructional material on the 
              making of bombs, destructive devices, and weapons of mass 
              destruction.
Sec. 805. Compilation of statistics relating to intimidation of 
              Government employees.
Sec. 806. Victim Restitution Act of 1995.

                     TITLE IX--HABEAS CORPUS REFORM

Sec. 901. Filing deadlines.
Sec. 902. Appeal.
Sec. 903. Amendment of Federal rules of appellate procedure.
Sec. 904. Section 2254 amendments.
Sec. 905. Section 2255 amendments.
Sec. 906. Limits on second or successive applications.
Sec. 907. Death penalty litigation procedures.
Sec. 908. Technical amendment.
Sec. 909. Severability.
                         TITLE I--CRIMINAL ACTS

     SEC. 101. PROTECTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Homicide.--Section 1114 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1114. Protection of officers and employees of the 
       United States

       ``Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee 
     of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the 
     United States Government (including any member of the 
     uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged 
     in or on account of the performance of official duties, or 
     any person assisting such an officer or employee in the 
     performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, 
     shall be punished, in the case of murder, as provided under 
     section 1111, or in the case of manslaughter, as provided 
     under section 1112, or, in the case of attempted murder or 
     manslaughter, as provided in section 1113.''.
       (b) Threats Against Former Officers and Employees.--Section 
     115(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, or threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, any 
     person who formerly served as a person designated in 
     paragraph (1), or'' after ``assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or 
     attempts to kidnap or murder''.

     SEC. 102. PROHIBITING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORIST 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--That chapter 113B of title 18, United 
     States Code, that relates to terrorism is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2339B. Providing material support to terrorist 
       organizations

       ``(a) Offense.--Whoever, within the United States, 
     knowingly provides material support or resources in or 
     affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any organization 
     which the person knows or should have known is a terrorist 
     organization that has been designated under section 
     212(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a 
     terrorist organization shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     `material support or resources' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 2339A of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2339B. Providing material support to terrorist organizations.''.

     SEC. 103. MODIFICATION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT PROVISION.

       Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

       ``(a) Offense.--Whoever, within the United States, provides 
     material support or resources or conceals or disguises the 
     nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or 
     resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in 
     preparation for or in carrying out, a violation of section 
     32, 37, 351, 844(f) or (i), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 
     1363, 1751, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, or 2332b of this 
     title or section 46502 of title 49, or in preparation for 
     or in carrying out the concealment or an escape from the 
     commission of any such violation, shall be fined under 
     this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `material 
     support or resources' means currency or other financial 
     securities, financial services, lodging, training, 
     safehouses, false documentation or identification, 
     communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal 
     substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other 
     physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.''.

     SEC. 104. ACTS OF TERRORISM TRANSCENDING NATIONAL BOUNDARIES.

       (a) Offense.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after section 2332a the following:

     ``Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national 
       boundaries

       ``(a) Prohibited Acts.--
       ``(1) Whoever, involving any conduct transcending national 
     boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection 
     (b)--
       ``(A) kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting 
     in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon 
     any individual within the United States; or
       ``(B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury 
     to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, 
     conveyance, or other real or personal property within the 
     United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or 
     damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal 
     property within the United States;
     in violation of the laws of any State or the United States 
     shall be punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
       ``(2) Whoever threatens to commit an offense under 
     paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be 
     punished as prescribed in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Jurisdictional Bases.--The circumstances referred to 
     in subsection (a) are--
       ``(1) any of the offenders travels in, or uses the mail or 
     any facility of, interstate or foreign commerce in 
     furtherance of the offense or to escape apprehension after 
     the commission of the offense;
       ``(2) the offense obstructs, delays, or affects interstate 
     or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed, delayed, or 
     affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had 
     been consummated;
       ``(3) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States 
     Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any 
     official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, 
     executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or 
     agency, of the United States;
       ``(4) the structure, conveyance, or other real or personal 
     property is, in whole or in part, owned, possessed, used by, 
     or leased to the United States, or any department or agency 
     thereof;
       ``(5) the offense is committed in the territorial sea 
     (including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil 
     below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected 
     thereon) of the United States; or
       ``(6) the offense is committed in those places within the 
     United States that are in the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
     Jurisdiction shall exist over all principals and co-
     conspirators of an offense under this section, and 
     accessories after the fact to any offense under this section, 
     if at least one of such circumstances is applicable to at 
     least one offender.
       ``(c) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Whoever violates this section shall be punished--
       ``(A) for a killing or if death results to any person from 
     any other conduct prohibited by this section by death, or by 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
       ``(B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years 
     or for life;
       ``(C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 
     years;
       ``(D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault 
     resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not 
     more than 30 years;
       ``(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, 
     or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not 
     more than 25 years;
       ``(F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, 
     for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would 
     have applied had the offense been completed; and
       ``(G) for threatening to commit an offense under this 
     section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not place on probation any person convicted of a 
     violation of this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment 
     imposed under this section run concurrently with any other 
     term of imprisonment.
       ``(d) Limitation on Prosecution.--No indictment shall be 
     sought nor any information filed for any offense described in 
     this section until the Attorney General, or the highest 
     ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with 
     responsibility for criminal prosecutions, makes a written 
     certification that, in the judgment of the certifying 
     official, such offense, or any activity preparatory to or 
     meant to conceal its commission, is a Federal crime of 
     terrorism.
       ``(e) Proof Requirements.--
       ``(1) The prosecution is not required to prove knowledge by 
     any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the 
     indictment.
       ``(2) In a prosecution under this section that is based 
     upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the 
     offense under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to 
     criminal procedure or evidence, are adopted.

[[Page H2146]]

       ``(f) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is 
     extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction--
       ``(1) over any offense under subsection (a), including any 
     threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit such offense; and
       ``(2) over conduct which, under section 3 of this title, 
     renders any person an accessory after the fact to an offense 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `conduct transcending national boundaries' 
     means conduct occurring outside the United States in addition 
     to the conduct occurring in the United States;
       ``(2) the term `facility of interstate or foreign commerce' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 1958(b)(2) of this 
     title;
       ``(3) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning 
     prescribed in section 1365(g)(3) of this title;
       ``(4) the term `territorial sea of the United States' means 
     all waters extending seaward to 12 nautical miles from the 
     baselines of the United States determined in accordance with 
     international law; and
       ``(5) the term `Federal crime of terrorism' means an 
     offense that--
       ``(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of 
     government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate 
     against government conduct; and
       ``(B) is a violation of--
       ``(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or 
     aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at 
     international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 (relating to 
     biological weapons), 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, 
     and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault), 
     831 (relating to nuclear weapons), 842(m) or (n) (relating to 
     plastic explosives), 844(e) (relating to certain bombings), 
     844(f) or (i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain 
     property), 956 (relating to conspiracy to commit violent acts 
     in foreign countries), 1114 (relating to protection of 
     officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating 
     to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official 
     guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating 
     to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government 
     property), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication 
     lines), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property 
     within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 
     United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of energy 
     facility), 1751 (relating to Presidential and Presidential 
     staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault), 2152 (relating 
     to injury of harbor defenses), 2155 (relating to destruction 
     of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 
     (relating to production of defective national defense 
     materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to 
     violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to 
     violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to 
     certain homicides and violence outside the United States), 
     2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b 
     (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries), 2339A (relating to providing material support to 
     terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to 
     terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of 
     this title;
       ``(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear 
     facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; or
       ``(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), or 
     60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or 
     hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.
       ``(h) Investigative Authority.--In addition to any other 
     investigatory authority with respect to violations of this 
     title, the Attorney General shall have primary investigative 
     responsibility for all Federal crimes of terrorism, and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall assist the Attorney General 
     at the request of the Attorney General.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of the chapter 113B of title 18, United States 
     Code, that relates to terrorism is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 2332a the following new item:

``2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.''.

       (c) Statute of Limitations Amendment.--Section 3286 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking ``any offense'' and inserting ``any non-
     capital offense'';
       (2) striking ``36'' and inserting ``37'';
       (3) striking ``2331'' and inserting ``2332'';
       (4) striking ``2339'' and inserting ``2332a''; and
       (5) inserting ``2332b (acts of terrorism transcending 
     national boundaries),'' after ``(use of weapons of mass 
     destruction),''.
       (d) Presumptive Detention.--Section 3142(e) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, 956(a), or 
     2332b'' after ``section 924(c)''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 846 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``In addition to any 
     other'' and all that follows through the end of the section.

     SEC. 105. CONSPIRACY TO HARM PEOPLE AND PROPERTY OVERSEAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 956 of chapter 45 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure 
       persons or damage property in a foreign country

       ``(a)(1) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, conspires with one or more other persons, regardless 
     of where such other person or persons are located, to commit 
     at any place outside the United States an act that would 
     constitute the offense of murder, kidnapping, or maiming if 
     committed in the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States shall, if any of the 
     conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the 
     United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be 
     punished as provided in subsection (a)(2).
       ``(2) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)(1) 
     of this section is--
       ``(A) imprisonment for any term of years or for life if the 
     offense is conspiracy to murder or kidnap; and
       ``(B) imprisonment for not more than 35 years if the 
     offense is conspiracy to maim.
       ``(b) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of 
     where such other person or persons are located, to damage or 
     destroy specific property situated within a foreign country 
     and belonging to a foreign government or to any political 
     subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, 
     or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other 
     public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or 
     any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated, 
     shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the 
     jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the 
     conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than 25 years.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 956 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 45 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``956. Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage 
              property in a foreign country.''.

     SEC. 106. CLARIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF CRIMINAL 
                   JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN TERRORISM OFFENSES 
                   OVERSEAS.

       (a) Aircraft Piracy.--Section 46502(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and later found in the 
     United States'';
       (2) so that paragraph (2) reads as follows:
       ``(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph 
     (1) if--
       ``(A) a national of the United States was aboard the 
     aircraft;
       ``(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or
       ``(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United 
     States.''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `national 
     of the United States' has the meaning prescribed in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''.
       (b) Destruction of Aircraft or Aircraft Facilities.--
     Section 32(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``, if the offender is later found in the 
     United States,''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following: ``There is 
     jurisdiction over an offense under this subsection if a 
     national of the United States was on board, or would have 
     been on board, the aircraft; an offender is a national of the 
     United States; or an offender is afterwards found in the 
     United States. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `national of the United States' has the meaning prescribed in 
     section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.''.
       (c) Murder of Foreign Officials and Certain Other 
     Persons.--Section 1116 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) `National of the United States' has the meaning 
     prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``If the victim of an offense under 
     subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside 
     the United States, the United States may exercise 
     jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a 
     representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United 
     States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, 
     or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United 
     States.''.
       (d) Protection of Foreign Officials and Certain Other 
     Persons.--Section 112 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by inserting `` `national of the 
     United States','' before ``and''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``If the victim of an offense under 
     subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside 
     the United States, the United States may exercise 
     jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a 
     representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United 
     States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, 
     or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United 
     States.''.
       (e) Threats and Extortion Against Foreign Officials and 
     Certain Other Persons.--Section 878 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by inserting `` `national of the 
     United States','' before ``and''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``If the victim of an offense under 
     subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside

[[Page H2147]]

     the United States, the United States may exercise 
     jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a 
     representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United 
     States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, 
     or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United 
     States.''.
       (f) Kidnapping of Internationally Protected Persons.--
     Section 1201(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) 
     is an internationally protected person outside the United 
     States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the 
     offense if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, 
     employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a 
     national of the United States, or (3) an offender is 
     afterwards found in the United States.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `national of the United States' has 
     the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''.
       (g) Violence at International Airports.--Section 37(b)(2) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``the offender is later 
     found in the United States''; and
       (2) by inserting ``; or (B) an offender or a victim is a 
     national of the United States (as defined in section 
     101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(22)))'' after ``the offender is later found in the 
     United States''.
       (h) Biological Weapons.--Section 178 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding the following at the end:
       ``(5) the term `national of the United States' has the 
     meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).''.

     SEC. 107. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS 
                   DESTRUCTION STATUTE.

       Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``Against a National or Within the United 
     States'' after ``Offense'';
       (B) by inserting ``, without lawful authority'' after ``A 
     person who'';
       (C) by inserting ``threatens,'' before ``attempts or 
     conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction''; and
       (D) by inserting ``and the results of such use affect 
     interstate or foreign commerce or, in the case of a threat, 
     attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or 
     foreign commerce'' before the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by striking ``section 921'' 
     and inserting ``section 921(a)(4) (other than subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C))'';
       (3) in subsection (b), so that subparagraph (B) of 
     paragraph (2) reads as follows:
       ``(B) any weapon that is designed to cause death or serious 
     bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact 
     of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;'';
       (4) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Offense by National Outside the United States.--Any 
     national of the United States who, without lawful authority 
     and outside the United States, uses, or threatens, attempts, 
     or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction shall be 
     imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death 
     results, shall be punished by death, or by imprisonment for 
     any term of years or for life.''.

     SEC. 108. ADDITION OF OFFENSES TO THE MONEY LAUNDERING 
                   STATUTE.

       (a) Murder and Destruction of Property.--Section 
     1956(c)(7)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``or extortion;'' and inserting ``extortion, 
     murder, or destruction of property by means of explosive or 
     fire;''.
       (b) Specific Offenses.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``an offense under'' the following: 
     ``section 32 (relating to the destruction of aircraft), 
     section 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 
     section 115 (relating to influencing, impeding, or 
     retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or 
     injuring a family member),'';
       (2) by inserting after ``section 215 (relating to 
     commissions or gifts for procuring loans),'' the following: 
     ``section 351 (relating to Congressional or Cabinet officer 
     assassination),'';
       (3) by inserting after ``section 793, 794, or 798 (relating 
     to espionage),'' the following: ``section 831 (relating to 
     prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 
     844 (f) or (i) (relating to destruction by explosives or fire 
     of Government property or property affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce),'';
       (4) by inserting after ``section 875 (relating to 
     interstate communications),'' the following: ``section 956 
     (relating to conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure 
     certain property in a foreign country),'';
       (5) by inserting after ``1032 (relating to concealment of 
     assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of 
     financial institution),'' the following: ``section 1111 
     (relating to murder), section 1114 (relating to protection of 
     officers and employees of the United States), section 1116 
     (relating to murder of foreign officials, official guests, or 
     internationally protected persons),'';
       (6) by inserting after ``section 1203 (relating to hostage 
     taking),'' the following: ``section 1361 (relating to willful 
     injury of Government property), section 1363 (relating to 
     destruction of property within the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction),'';
       (7) by inserting after ``section 1708 (theft from the 
     mail),'' the following: ``section 1751 (relating to 
     Presidential assassination),'';
       (8) by inserting after ``2114 (relating to bank and postal 
     robbery and theft),'' the following: ``section 2280 (relating 
     to violence against maritime navigation), section 2281 
     (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms),''; 
     and
       (9) by striking ``of this title'' and inserting the 
     following: ``section 2332 (relating to terrorist acts abroad 
     against United States nationals), section 2332a (relating to 
     use of weapons of mass destruction), section 2332b (relating 
     to international terrorist acts transcending national 
     boundaries), section 2339A (relating to providing material 
     support to terrorists) of this title, section 46502 of title 
     49, United States Code''.

     SEC. 109. EXPANSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER BOMB 
                   THREATS.

       Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``commerce,'' and inserting ``interstate or 
     foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign 
     commerce,''.

     SEC. 110. CLARIFICATION OF MARITIME VIOLENCE JURISDICTION.

       Section 2280(b)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and the activity is not 
     prohibited as a crime by the State in which the activity 
     takes place''; and
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``the activity takes place 
     on a ship flying the flag of a foreign country or outside the 
     United States,''.

     SEC. 111. POSSESSION OF STOLEN EXPLOSIVES PROHIBITED.

       Section 842(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(h) It shall be unlawful for any person to receive, 
     possess, transport, ship, conceal, store, barter, sell, 
     dispose of, or pledge or accept as security for a loan, any 
     stolen explosive materials which are moving as, which are 
     part of, which constitute, or which have been shipped or 
     transported in, interstate or foreign commerce, either before 
     or after such materials were stolen, knowing or having 
     reasonable cause to believe that the explosive materials were 
     stolen.''.

     SEC. 112. STUDY TO DETERMINE STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING WHAT 
                   AMMUNITION IS CAPABLE OF PENETRATING POLICE 
                   BODY ARMOR.

       The National Institute of Justice is directed to perform a 
     study of, and to recommend to Congress, a methodology for 
     determining what ammunition, designed for handguns, is 
     capable of penetrating police body armor. Not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     National Institute of Justice shall report to Congress the 
     results of such study and such recommendations.
                     TITLE II--INCREASED PENALTIES

     SEC. 201. MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR CERTAIN EXPLOSIVES OFFENSES.

       (a) Increased Penalties for Damaging Certain Property.--
     Section 844(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(f) Whoever damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or 
     destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any personal or 
     real property in whole or in part owned, possessed, or used 
     by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or 
     agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving 
     Federal financial assistance shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned for not more than 25 years, or both, but--
       ``(1) if personal injury results to any person other than 
     the offender, the term of imprisonment shall be not more than 
     40 years;
       ``(2) if fire or an explosive is used and its use creates a 
     substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any person other 
     than the offender, the term of imprisonment shall not be less 
     than 20 years; and
       ``(3) if death results to any person other than the 
     offender, the offender shall be subject to the death penalty 
     or imprisonment for any term of years not less than 30, or 
     for life.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 81 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``fined under this title 
     or imprisoned not more than five years, or both'' and 
     inserting ``imprisoned not more than 25 years or fined the 
     greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing 
     or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or 
     both''.
       (c) Statute of Limitation for Arson Offenses.--
       (1) Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3295. Arson offenses

       ``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any 
     non-capital offense under section 81 or subsection (f), (h), 
     or (i) of section 844 of this title unless the indictment is 
     found or the information is instituted within 7 years after 
     the date on which the offense was committed.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 213 
     of title 18, United States Code, is

[[Page H2148]]

     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``3295. Arson offenses.''.

       (3) Section 844(i) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 202. INCREASED PENALTY FOR EXPLOSIVE CONSPIRACIES.

       Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a 
     person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this 
     chapter shall be subject to the same penalties (other than 
     the penalty of death) as those prescribed for the offense the 
     commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.''.

     SEC. 203. INCREASED AND ALTERNATE CONSPIRACY PENALTIES FOR 
                   TERRORISM OFFENSES.

       (a) Title 18 Offenses.--
       (1) Sections 32(a)(7), 32(b)(4), 37(a), 115(a)(1)(A), 
     115(a)(2), 1203(a), 2280(a)(1)(H), and 2281(a)(1)(F) of title 
     18, United States Code, are each amended by inserting ``or 
     conspires'' after ``attempts''.
       (2) Section 115(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or attempted kidnapping'' both places 
     it appears and inserting ``, attempted kidnapping, or 
     conspiracy to kidnap''.
       (3)(A) Section 115(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``or attempted murder'' and inserting 
     ``, attempted murder, or conspiracy to murder''.
       (B) Section 115(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and 1113'' and inserting ``, 1113, and 
     1117''.
       (4) Section 175(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspires to do so,'' after ``any 
     organization to do so,''.
       (b) Aircraft Piracy.--
       (1) Section 46502(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspiring'' after ``attempting''.
       (2) Section 46502(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or conspiring to commit'' after 
     ``committing''.

     SEC. 204. MANDATORY PENALTY FOR TRANSFERRING A FIREARM 
                   KNOWING THAT IT WILL BE USED TO COMMIT A CRIME 
                   OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or having reasonable cause to believe'' 
     after ``knowing''; and
       (2) by striking ``imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined 
     in accordance with this title, or both.'' and inserting 
     ``subject to the same penalties as may be imposed under 
     subsection (c) for a first conviction for the use or carrying 
     of the firearm.''.

     SEC. 205. MANDATORY PENALTY FOR TRANSFERRING AN EXPLOSIVE 
                   MATERIAL KNOWING THAT IT WILL BE USED TO COMMIT 
                   A CRIME OF VIOLENCE.

       Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Whoever knowingly transfers any explosive materials, 
     knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such 
     explosive materials will be used to commit a crime of 
     violence (as defined in section 924(c)(3) of this title) or 
     drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c)(2) of 
     this title) shall be subject to the same penalties as may be 
     imposed under subsection (h) for a first conviction for the 
     use or carrying of the explosive materials.''.

     SEC. 206. DIRECTIONS TO SENTENCING COMMISSION.

       The United States Sentencing Commission shall forthwith, in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Act of 1987, as though the authority under 
     that section had not expired, amend the sentencing guidelines 
     so that the chapter 3 adjustment relating to international 
     terrorism only applies to Federal crimes of terrorism, as 
     defined in section 2332b(g) of title 18, United States Code.
                     TITLE III--INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS

     SEC. 301. PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES IN FOREIGN 
                   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) Application.--Section 3122(b)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``or foreign 
     counterintelligence'' after ``criminal''.
       (b) Order.--
       (1) Section 3123(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or foreign counterintelligence'' after 
     ``criminal''.
       (2) Section 3123(b)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended in subparagraph (B), by striking ``criminal''.

     SEC. 302. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN CONSUMER REPORTS TO THE 
                   FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

       (a) In General.--The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 623 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 624. DISCLOSURES TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
                   INVESTIGATION FOR FOREIGN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
                   PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Identity of Financial Institutions.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding section 604 or any other provision of this 
     title, a court or magistrate judge may issue an order ex 
     parte, upon application by the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation (or the Director's designee, whose rank 
     shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge), 
     directing a consumer reporting agency to furnish to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation the names and addresses of 
     all financial institutions (as that term is defined in 
     section 1101 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978) 
     at which a consumer maintains or has maintained an account, 
     to the extent that information is in the files of the agency. 
     The court or magistrate judge shall issue the order if the 
     court or magistrate judge finds, that--
       ``(A) such information is necessary for the conduct of an 
     authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
       ``(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving 
     reason to believe that the consumer--
       ``(i) is a foreign power (as defined in section 101 of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) or a person 
     who is not a United States person (as defined in such section 
     101) and is an official of a foreign power; or
       ``(ii) is an agent of a foreign power and is engaging or 
     has engaged in international terrorism (as that term is 
     defined in section 101(c) of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978) or clandestine intelligence 
     activities that involve or may involve a violation of 
     criminal statutes of the United States.
       ``(2) An order issued under this subsection shall not 
     disclose that it is issued for purposes of a 
     counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(b) Identifying Information.--(1) Notwithstanding section 
     604 or any other provision of this title, a court or 
     magistrate judge shall issue an order ex parte, upon 
     application by the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation (or the Director's designee, whose rank shall 
     be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge), 
     directing a consumer reporting agency to furnish identifying 
     information respecting a consumer, limited to name, address, 
     former addresses, places of employment, or former places of 
     employment, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The court 
     or magistrate judge shall issue the order if the court or 
     magistrate judge finds, that--
       ``(A) such information is necessary to the conduct of an 
     authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
       ``(B) there is information giving reason to believe that 
     the consumer has been, or is, in contact with a foreign power 
     or an agent of a foreign power (as defined in section 101 of 
     the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).
       ``(2) An order issued under this subsection shall not 
     disclose that it is issued for purposes of a 
     counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(c) Court Order for Disclosure of Consumer Reports.--(1) 
     Notwithstanding section 604 or any other provision of this 
     title, if requested in writing by the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (or the Director's designee, whose 
     rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in 
     Charge), a court may issue an order ex parte directing a 
     consumer reporting agency to furnish a consumer report to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, after the court or 
     magistrate finds, in a proceeding in camera, that--
       ``(A) the consumer report is necessary for the conduct of 
     an authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and
       ``(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving 
     reason to believe that the consumer whose consumer report is 
     sought--
       ``(i) is an agent of a foreign power; and
       ``(ii) is engaging or has engaged in international 
     terrorism (as that term is defined in section 101(c) of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) or clandestine 
     intelligence activities that involve or may involve a 
     violation of criminal statutes of the United States.
       ``(2) An order issued under this subsection shall not 
     disclose that it is issued for purposes of a 
     counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(d) Confidentiality.--(1) No consumer reporting agency or 
     officer, employee, or agent of a consumer reporting agency 
     shall disclose to any person, other than officers, employees, 
     or agents of a consumer reporting agency necessary to fulfill 
     the requirement to disclose information to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation under this section, that the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation has sought or obtained the identity of 
     financial institutions or a consumer report respecting any 
     consumer under subsection (a), (b), or (c).
       ``(2) No consumer reporting agency or officer, employee, or 
     agent of a consumer reporting agency shall include in any 
     consumer report any information that would indicate that the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained such 
     information or a consumer report.
       ``(e) Payment of Fees.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     is authorized, subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     pay to the consumer reporting agency assembling or providing 
     reports or information in accordance with procedures 
     established under this section, a fee for reimbursement for 
     such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been 
     directly incurred in searching, reproducing, or transporting 
     books, papers, records, or other data required or requested 
     to be produced under this section.
       ``(f) Limit on Dissemination.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may not disseminate information obtained 
     pursuant to this section outside of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, except--
       ``(1) to the Department of Justice or any other law 
     enforcement agency, as may be necessary for the approval or 
     conduct of a foreign counterintelligence investigation; or
       ``(2) where the information concerns a person subject to 
     the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to appropriate 
     investigative authorities within the military department

[[Page H2149]]

     concerned as may be necessary for the conduct of a joint 
     foreign counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(g) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to prohibit information from being furnished by 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to a subpoena or 
     court order, or in connection with a judicial or 
     administrative proceeding to enforce the provisions of this 
     Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize 
     or permit the withholding of information from the Congress.
       ``(h) Reports to Congress.--On an annual basis, the 
     Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate concerning 
     all requests made pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c).
       ``(i) Damages.--Any agency or department of the United 
     States obtaining or disclosing any consumer reports, records, 
     or information contained therein in violation of this section 
     is liable to any person harmed by the violation in an amount 
     equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) $100, without regard to the volume of consumer 
     reports, records, or information involved;
       ``(2) any actual damages sustained by the person harmed as 
     a result of the disclosure;
       ``(3) if the violation is found to have been willful or 
     intentional, such punitive damages as a court may allow; and
       ``(4) in the case of any successful action to enforce 
     liability under this subsection, the costs of the action, 
     together with reasonable attorney fees, as determined by the 
     court.
       ``(j) Disciplinary Actions for Violations.--If a court 
     determines that any agency or department of the United States 
     has violated any provision of this section and the court 
     finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise 
     questions of whether or not an officer or employee of the 
     agency or department acted willfully or intentionally with 
     respect to the violation, the agency or department shall 
     promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not 
     disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or 
     employee who was responsible for the violation.
       ``(k) Good-Faith Exception.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, any consumer reporting agency or 
     agent or employee thereof making disclosure of consumer 
     reports or identifying information pursuant to this 
     subsection in good-faith reliance upon a certification of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to provisions of 
     this section shall not be liable to any person for such 
     disclosure under this title, the constitution of any State, 
     or any law or regulation of any State or any political 
     subdivision of any State notwithstanding.
       ``(l) Injunctive Relief.--In addition to any other remedy 
     contained in this section, injunctive relief shall be 
     available to require compliance with the procedures of this 
     section. In the event of any successful action under this 
     subsection, costs together with reasonable attorney fees, as 
     determined by the court, may be recovered.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a 
     et seq.) is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 623 the following new item:

``624. Disclosures to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for foreign 
              counterintelligence purposes.''.

     SEC. 303. DISCLOSURE OF BUSINESS RECORDS HELD BY THIRD 
                   PARTIES IN FOREIGN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CASES.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 121 the following:

                ``CHAPTER 122--ACCESS TO CERTAIN RECORDS

``Sec.
``2720. Disclosure of business records held by third parties in foreign 
              counterintelligence cases.

     ``Sec. 2720. Disclosure of business records held by third 
       parties in foreign counterintelligence cases

       ``(a)(1) A court or magistrate judge may issue an order ex 
     parte, upon application by the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation (or the Director's designee, whose rank 
     shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge), 
     directing any common carrier, public accommodation facility, 
     physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility to 
     furnish any records in its possession to the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation. The court or magistrate judge shall issue 
     the order if the court or magistrate judge finds that--
       ``(A) such records are necessary for counter-terrorism or 
     foreign counterintelligence purposes; and
       ``(B) there are specific and articulable facts giving 
     reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain 
     is--
       ``(i) a foreign power; or
       ``(ii) an agent of a foreign power and is engaging or has 
     engaged in international terrorism (as that term is defined 
     in section 101(c) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978) or clandestine intelligence activities that 
     involve or may involve a violation of criminal statutes of 
     the United States.
       ``(2) An order issued under this subsection shall not 
     disclose that it is issued for purposes of a 
     counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(b) No common carrier, public accommodation facility, 
     physical storage facility, or vehicle rental facility, or any 
     officer, employee, or agent of such common carrier, public 
     accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or vehicle 
     rental facility, shall disclose to any person, other than 
     those officers, agents, or employees of the common carrier, 
     public accommodation facility, physical storage facility, or 
     vehicle rental facility necessary to fulfill the requirement 
     to disclose the information to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation under this section.
       ``(c)(1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not 
     disseminate information obtained pursuant to this section 
     outside the Federal Bureau of Investigation, except--
       ``(A) to the Department of Justice or any other law 
     enforcement agency, as may be necessary for the approval or 
     conduct of a foreign counterintelligence investigation; or
       ``(B) where the information concerns a person subject to 
     the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to appropriate 
     investigative authorities within the military department 
     concerned as may be necessary for the conduct of a joint 
     foreign counterintelligence investigation.
       ``(2) Any agency or department of the United States 
     obtaining or disclosing any information in violation of this 
     paragraph shall be liable to any person harmed by the 
     violation in an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(A) $100 without regard to the volume of information 
     involved;
       ``(B) any actual damages sustained by the person harmed as 
     a result of the violation;
       ``(C) if the violation is willful or intentional, such 
     punitive damages as a court may allow; and
       ``(D) in the case of any successful action to enforce 
     liability under this paragraph, the costs of the action, 
     together with reasonable attorney fees, as determined by the 
     court.
       ``(d) If a court determines that any agency or department 
     of the United States has violated any provision of this 
     section and the court finds that the circumstances 
     surrounding the violation raise questions of whether or not 
     an officer or employee of the agency or department acted 
     willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the 
     agency or department shall promptly initiate a proceeding to 
     determine whether or not disciplinary action is warranted 
     against the officer or employee who was responsible for the 
     violation.
       ``(e) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `common carrier' means a locomotive, rail 
     carrier, bus carrying passengers, water common carrier, air 
     common carrier, or private commercial interstate carrier for 
     the delivery of packages and other objects;
       ``(2) the term `public accommodation facility' means any 
     inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment that provides 
     lodging to transient guests;
       ``(3) the term `physical storage facility' means any 
     business or entity that provides space for the storage of 
     goods or materials, or services related to the storage of 
     goods or materials, to the public or any segment thereof; and
       ``(4) the term `vehicle rental facility' means any person 
     or entity that provides vehicles for rent, lease, loan, or 
     other similar use, to the public or any segment thereof.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 121 
     the following new item:

``122. Access to certain records............................2720''.....

     SEC. 304. STUDY OF TAGGING EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS, DETECTION OF 
                   EXPLOSIVES AND EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS, RENDERING 
                   EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS INERT, AND IMPOSING 
                   CONTROLS OF PRECURSORS OF EXPLOSIVES.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     other Federal, State and local officials with expertise in 
     this area and such other individuals as the Attorney General 
     deems appropriate, shall conduct a study concerning--
       (1) the tagging of explosive materials for purposes of 
     detection and identification;
       (2) technology for devices to improve the detection of 
     explosives materials;
       (3) whether common chemicals used to manufacture explosive 
     materials can be rendered inert and whether it is feasible to 
     require it; and
       (4) whether controls can be imposed on certain precursor 
     chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials and whether 
     it is feasible to require it.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Congress a report that contains the results of the study 
     required by this section. The Attorney General shall make the 
     report available to the public.

     SEC. 305. APPLICATION OF STATUTORY EXCLUSIONARY RULE 
                   CONCERNING INTERCEPTED WIRE OR ORAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS.

       Section 2515 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``This section shall not 
     apply to the disclosure by the United States in a criminal 
     trial or hearing or before a grand jury of the contents of a 
     wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, if 
     any law enforcement officers who intercepted the 
     communication or gathered the evidence derived

[[Page H2150]]

     therefrom acted with the reasonably objective belief that 
     their actions were in compliance with this chapter.''.

     SEC. 306. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF INFORMATION FROM 
                   WIRETAP-RELATED DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Definition of ``electronic communication''.--Section 
     2510(12) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and
       (3) by adding a new subparagraph (D), as follows:
       ``(D) information stored in a communications system used 
     for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;''
       (b) Definition of ``readily accessible to the general 
     public''.--Section 2510(16) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (E); and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (F).

     SEC. 307. ACCESS TO TELEPHONE BILLING RECORDS.

       (a) Section 2709.--Section 2709(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``local and long 
     distance'' before ``toll billing records'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end a new paragraph (3), as follows:
       ``(3) request the name, address, length of service, and 
     local and long distance toll billing records of a person or 
     entity if the Director or the Director's designee (in a 
     position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director) certifies 
     in writing to the wire or electronic communication service 
     provider to which the request is made that the information 
     sought is relevant to an authorized international terrorism 
     investigation (as defined in section 2331 of this title).''.
       (b) Section 2703.--Section 2703(c)(1)(C) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``local and long 
     distance'' before ``telephone toll billing records''.
       (c) Civil Remedy.--Section 2707 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``customer'' and 
     inserting ``any other person'';
       (2) in subsection (c), inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, and if the violation is willful or 
     intentional, such punitive damages as the court may allow, 
     and, in the case of any successful action to enforce 
     liability under this section, the costs of the action, 
     together with reasonable attorney fees, as determined by the 
     court''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Disciplinary Actions for Violations.--If a court 
     determines that any agency or department of the United States 
     has violated this chapter and the court finds that the 
     circumstances surrounding the violation raise questions of 
     whether or not an officer or employee of the agency or 
     department acted willfully or intentionally with respect to 
     the violation, the agency or department shall promptly 
     initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not 
     disciplinary action is warranted against the officer or 
     employee who was responsible for the violation.''.

     SEC. 308. REQUIREMENT TO PRESERVE RECORD EVIDENCE.

       Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Requirement to Preserve Evidence.--A provider of wire 
     or electronic communication services or a remote computing 
     service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall 
     take all necessary steps to preserve records, and other 
     evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court 
     order or other process. Such records shall be retained for a 
     period of 90 days, which period shall be extended for an 
     additional 90-day period upon a renewed request by the 
     governmental entity.''.

     SEC. 309. DETENTION HEARING.

       Section 3142(f) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``(not including any intermediate Saturday, 
     Sunday, or legal holiday)'' after ``five days'' and after 
     ``three days''.

     SEC. 310. REWARD AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking sections 3059 through 3059A and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3059. Reward authority of the Attorney General

       ``(a) The Attorney General may pay rewards and receive from 
     any department or agency, funds for the payment of rewards 
     under this section, to any individual who provides any 
     information unknown to the Government leading to the arrest 
     or prosecution of any individual for Federal felony offenses.
       ``(b) If the reward exceeds $100,000, the Attorney General 
     shall give notice of that fact to the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives not later than 30 days before authorizing the 
     payment of the reward.
       ``(c) A determination made by the Attorney General as to 
     whether to authorize an award under this section and as to 
     the amount of any reward authorized shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       ``(d) If the Attorney General determines that the identity 
     of the recipient of a reward or of the members of the 
     recipient's immediate family must be protected, the Attorney 
     General may take such measures in connection with the payment 
     of the reward as the Attorney General deems necessary to 
     effect such protection.
       ``(e) No officer or employee of any governmental entity may 
     receive a reward under this section for conduct in 
     performance of his or her official duties.
       ``(f) Any individual (and the immediate family of such 
     individual) who furnishes information which would justify a 
     reward under this section or a reward by the Secretary of 
     State under section 36 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 may, in the discretion of the 
     Attorney General, participate in the Attorney General's 
     witness security program under chapter 224 of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 203 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the items relating to section 3059 and 
     3059A and inserting the following new item:

``3059. Reward authority of the Attorney General.''.

       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1751 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subsection (g).

     SEC. 311. PROTECTION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN THE 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       The Attorney General is authorized--
       (1) to prohibit vehicles from parking or standing on any 
     street or roadway adjacent to any building in the District of 
     Columbia which is in whole or in part owned, possessed, used 
     by, or leased to the Federal Government and used by Federal 
     law enforcement authorities; and
       (2) to prohibit any person or entity from conducting 
     business on any property immediately adjacent to any such 
     building.

     SEC. 312. STUDY OF THEFTS FROM ARMORIES; REPORT TO THE 
                   CONGRESS.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study of the extent of thefts from military 
     arsenals (including National Guard armories) of firearms, 
     explosives, and other materials that are potentially useful 
     to terrorists.
       (b) Report to the Congress.--Within 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to the Congress a report on the study required by 
     subsection (a).
                      TITLE IV--NUCLEAR MATERIALS

     SEC. 401. EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS PROHIBITIONS.

       Section 831 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``nuclear material'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``nuclear material or 
     nuclear byproduct material'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``or the 
     environment'' after ``property'';
       (3) so that subsection (a)(1)(B) reads as follows:
       ``(B)(i) circumstances exist which are likely to cause the 
     death of or serious bodily injury to any person or 
     substantial damage to property or the environment; or (ii) 
     such circumstances are represented to the defendant to 
     exist;'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(6), by inserting ``or the 
     environment'' after ``property'';
       (5) so that subsection (c)(2) reads as follows:
       ``(2) an offender or a victim is a national of the United 
     States or a United States corporation or other legal 
     entity;'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``at the time of the 
     offense the nuclear material is in use, storage, or 
     transport, for peaceful purposes, and'';
       (7) by striking ``or'' at the end of subsection (c)(3);
       (8) in subsection (c)(4), by striking ``nuclear material 
     for peaceful purposes'' and inserting ``nuclear material or 
     nuclear byproduct material'';
       (9) by striking the period at the end of subsection (c)(4) 
     and inserting ``; or'';
       (10) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
       ``(5) the governmental entity under subsection (a)(5) is 
     the United States or the threat under subsection (a)(6) is 
     directed at the United States.'';
       (11) in subsection (f)(1)(A), by striking ``with an 
     isotopic concentration not in excess of 80 percent plutonium 
     238'';
       (12) in subsection (f)(1)(C) by inserting ``enriched 
     uranium, defined as'' before ``uranium'';
       (13) in subsection (f), by redesignating paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
       (14) by inserting after subsection (f)(1) the following:
       ``(2) the term `nuclear byproduct material' means any 
     material containing any radioactive isotope created through 
     an irradiation process in the operation of a nuclear reactor 
     or accelerator;'';
       (15) by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (f)(4), 
     as redesignated;
       (16) by striking the period at the end of subsection 
     (f)(5), as redesignated, and inserting a semicolon; and
       (17) by adding at the end of subsection (f) the following:
       ``(6) the term `national of the United States' has the 
     meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
       ``(7) the term `United States corporation or other legal 
     entity' means any corporation or other entity organized under 
     the laws of the

[[Page H2151]]

     United States or any State, district, commonwealth, territory 
     or possession of the United States.''.
        TITLE V--CONVENTION ON THE MARKING OF PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES

     SEC. 501. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 841 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) `Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives' 
     means the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for 
     the Purpose of Detection, Done at Montreal on 1 March 1991.
       ``(p) `Detection agent' means any one of the substances 
     specified in this subsection when introduced into a plastic 
     explosive or formulated in such explosive as a part of the 
     manufacturing process in such a manner as to achieve 
     homogeneous distribution in the finished explosive, 
     including--
       ``(1) Ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN), 
     C2H4(NO3)2, molecular weight 152, when 
     the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.2 
     percent by mass;
       ``(2) 2,3-Dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane (DMNB), 
     C6H12(NO2)2, molecular weight 176, when 
     the minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.1 
     percent by mass;
       ``(3) Para-Mononitrotoluene (p-MNT), 
     C7H7NO2, molecular weight 137, when the 
     minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 
     percent by mass;
       ``(4) Ortho-Mononitrotoluene (o-MNT), 
     C7H7NO2, molecular weight 137, when the 
     minimum concentration in the finished explosive is 0.5 
     percent by mass; and
       ``(5) any other substance in the concentration specified by 
     the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State 
     and the Secretary of Defense, which has been added to the 
     table in part 2 of the Technical Annex to the Convention on 
     the Marking of Plastic Explosives.
       ``(q) `Plastic explosive' means an explosive material in 
     flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more 
     high explosives which in their pure form have a vapor 
     pressure less than 10-4 Pa at a temperature of 
     25 deg.C., is formulated with a binder material, and is as a 
     mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature.''.

     SEC. 502. REQUIREMENT OF DETECTION AGENTS FOR PLASTIC 
                   EXPLOSIVES.

       Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture 
     any plastic explosive which does not contain a detection 
     agent.
       ``(m)(1) it shall be unlawful for any person to import or 
     bring into the United States, or export from the United 
     States, any plastic explosive which does not contain a 
     detection agent.
       ``(2) Until the 15-year period that begins with the date of 
     entry into force of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives with respect to the United States has expired, 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to the importation or bringing 
     into the United States, or the exportation from the United 
     States, of any plastic explosive which was imported, brought 
     into, or manufactured in the United States before the 
     effective date of this subsection by or on behalf of any 
     agency of the United States performing military or police 
     functions (including any military Reserve component) or by or 
     on behalf of the National Guard of any State.
       ``(n)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to ship, 
     transport, transfer, receive, or possess any plastic 
     explosive which does not contain a detection agent.
       ``(2)(A) During the 3-year period that begins on the 
     effective date of this subsection, paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to the shipment, transportation, transfer, receipt, or 
     possession of any plastic explosive, which was imported, 
     brought into, or manufactured in the United States before 
     such effective date by any person.
       ``(B) Until the 15-year period that begins on the date of 
     entry into force of the Convention on the Marking of Plastic 
     Explosives with respect to the United States has expired, 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to the shipment, 
     transportation, transfer, receipt, or possession of any 
     plastic explosive, which was imported, brought into, or 
     manufactured in the United States before the effective date 
     of this subsection by or on behalf of any agency of the 
     United States performing a military or police function 
     (including any military reserve component) or by or on behalf 
     of the National Guard of any State.
       ``(o) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than an 
     agency of the United States (including any military reserve 
     component) or the National Guard of any State, possessing any 
     plastic explosive on the effective date of this subsection, 
     to fail to report to the Secretary within 120 days after the 
     effective date of this subsection the quantity of such 
     explosives possessed, the manufacturer or importer, any marks 
     of identification on such explosives, and such other 
     information as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.''.

     SEC. 503. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.

       Section 844(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a) Any person who violates subsections (a) through (i) 
     or (l) through (o) of section 842 of this title shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both.''.

     SEC. 504. EXCEPTIONS.

       Section 845 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(l), (m), (n), or (o) 
     of section 842 and subsections'' after ``subsections'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``and which pertains 
     to safety'' before the semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) It is an affirmative defense against any proceeding 
     involving subsection (l), (m), (n), or (o) of section 842 of 
     this title if the proponent proves by a preponderance of the 
     evidence that the plastic explosive--
       ``(1) consisted of a small amount of plastic explosive 
     intended for and utilized solely in lawful--
       ``(A) research, development, or testing of new or modified 
     explosive materials;
       ``(B) training in explosives detection or development or 
     testing of explosives detection equipment; or
       ``(C) forensic science purposes; or
       ``(2) was plastic explosive which, within 3 years after the 
     effective date of this paragraph, will be or is incorporated 
     in a military device within the territory of the United 
     States and remains an integral part of such military device, 
     or is intended to be, or is incorporated in, and remains an 
     integral part of a military device that is intended to 
     become, or has become, the property of any agency of the 
     United States performing military or police functions 
     (including any military reserve component) or the National 
     Guard of any State, wherever such device is located. For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `military device' 
     includes shells, bombs, projectiles, mines, missiles, 
     rockets, shaped charges, grenades, perforators, and similar 
     devices lawfully manufactured exclusively for military or 
     police purposes.''.

     SEC. 505. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                TITLE VI--IMMIGRATION-RELATED PROVISIONS
                Subtitle A--Removal of Alien Terrorists

            PART 1--REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS

     SEC. 601. REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of the table of contents the 
     following:

       ``Title V--Special Removal Procedures for Alien Terrorists

``Sec. 501. Definitions.
``Sec. 502. Establishment of special removal court; panel of attorneys 
              to assist with classified information.
``Sec. 503. Application for initiation of special removal proceeding.
``Sec. 504. Consideration of application.
``Sec. 505. Special removal hearings.
``Sec. 506. Consideration of classified information.
``Sec. 507. Appeals.
``Sec. 508. Detention and custody.'';

     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new title:

       ``TITLE V--SPECIAL REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS


                             ``definitions

       ``Sec. 501. In this title:
       ``(1) The term `alien terrorist' means an alien described 
     in section 241(a)(4)(B).
       ``(2) The term `classified information' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 1(a) of the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(3) The term `national security' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1(b) of the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.).
       ``(4) The term `special attorney' means an attorney who is 
     on the panel established under section 502(e).
       ``(5) The term `special removal court' means the court 
     established under section 502(a).
       ``(6) The term `special removal hearing' means a hearing 
     under section 505.
       ``(7) The term `special removal proceeding' means a 
     proceeding under this title.


``establishment of special removal court; panel of attorneys to assist 
                      with classified information

       ``Sec. 502. (a) In General.--The Chief Justice of the 
     United States shall publicly designate 5 district court 
     judges from 5 of the United States judicial circuits who 
     shall constitute a court which shall have jurisdiction to 
     conduct all special removal proceedings.
       ``(b) Terms.--Each judge designated under subsection (a) 
     shall serve for a term of 5 years and shall be eligible for 
     redesignation, except that the four associate judges first so 
     designated shall be designated for terms of one, two, three, 
     and four years so that the term of one judge shall expire 
     each year.
       ``(c) Chief Judge.--The Chief Justice shall publicly 
     designate one of the judges of the special removal court to 
     be the chief judge of the court. The chief judge shall 
     promulgate rules to facilitate the functioning of the court 
     and shall be responsible for assigning the consideration of 
     cases to the various judges.
       ``(d) Expeditious and Confidential Nature of Proceedings.--
     The provisions of section 103(c) of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(c)) shall apply to 
     proceedings under this title in the same manner as they apply 
     to proceedings under such Act.
       ``(e) Establishment of Panel of Special Attorneys.--The 
     special removal court shall

[[Page H2152]]

     provide for the designation of a panel of attorneys each of 
     whom--
       ``(1) has a security clearance which affords the attorney 
     access to classified information, and
       ``(2) has agreed to represent permanent resident aliens 
     with respect to classified information under sections 506 and 
     507(c)(2)(B) in accordance with (and subject to the penalties 
     under) this title.


       ``application for initiation of special removal proceeding

       ``Sec. 503. (a) In General.--Whenever the Attorney General 
     has classified information that an alien is an alien 
     terrorist, the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's 
     discretion, may seek removal of the alien under this title 
     through the filing with the special removal court of a 
     written application described in subsection (b) that seeks an 
     order authorizing a special removal proceeding under this 
     title. The application shall be submitted in camera and ex 
     parte and shall be filed under seal with the court.
       ``(b) Contents of Application.--Each application for a 
     special removal proceeding shall include all of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The identity of the Department of Justice attorney 
     making the application.
       ``(2) The approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy 
     Attorney General for the filing of the application based upon 
     a finding by that individual that the application satisfies 
     the criteria and requirements of this title.
       ``(3) The identity of the alien for whom authorization for 
     the special removal proceeding is sought.
       ``(4) A statement of the facts and circumstances relied on 
     by the Department of Justice to establish that--
       ``(A) the alien is an alien terrorist and is physically 
     present in the United States, and
       ``(B) with respect to such alien, adherence to the 
     provisions of title II regarding the deportation of aliens 
     would pose a risk to the national security of the United 
     States.
       ``(5) An oath or affirmation respecting each of the facts 
     and statements described in the previous paragraphs.
       ``(c) Right to Dismiss.--The Department of Justice retains 
     the right to dismiss a removal action under this title at any 
     stage of the proceeding.


                     ``consideration of application

       ``Sec. 504. (a) In General.--In the case of an application 
     under section 503 to the special removal court, a single 
     judge of the court shall be assigned to consider the 
     application. The judge, in accordance with the rules of the 
     court, shall consider the application and may consider other 
     information, including classified information, presented 
     under oath or affirmation. The judge shall consider the 
     application (and any hearing thereof) in camera and ex parte. 
     A verbatim record shall be maintained of any such hearing.
       ``(b) Approval of Order.--The judge shall enter ex parte 
     the order requested in the application if the judge finds, on 
     the basis of such application and such other information (if 
     any), that there is probable cause to believe that--
       ``(1) the alien who is the subject of the application has 
     been correctly identified and is an alien terrorist, and
       ``(2) adherence to the provisions of title II regarding the 
     deportation of the identified alien would pose a risk to the 
     national security of the United States.
       ``(c) Denial of Order.--If the judge denies the order 
     requested in the application, the judge shall prepare a 
     written statement of the judge's reasons for the denial.
       ``(d) Exclusive Provisions.--Whenever an order is issued 
     under this section with respect to an alien--
       ``(1) the alien's rights regarding removal and expulsion 
     shall be governed solely by the provisions of this title, and
       ``(2) except as they are specifically referenced, no other 
     provisions of this Act shall be applicable.


                       ``special removal hearings

       ``Sec. 505. (a) In General.--In any case in which the 
     application for the order is approved under section 504, a 
     special removal hearing shall be conducted under this section 
     for the purpose of determining whether the alien to whom the 
     order pertains should be removed from the United States on 
     the grounds that the alien is an alien terrorist. Consistent 
     with section 506, the alien shall be given reasonable notice 
     of the nature of the charges against the alien and a general 
     account of the basis for the charges. The alien shall be 
     given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the 
     time and place at which the hearing will be held. The hearing 
     shall be held as expeditiously as possible.
       ``(b) Use of Same Judge.--The special removal hearing shall 
     be held before the same judge who granted the order pursuant 
     to section 504 unless that judge is deemed unavailable due to 
     illness or disability by the chief judge of the special 
     removal court, or has died, in which case the chief judge 
     shall assign another judge to conduct the special removal 
     hearing. A decision by the chief judge pursuant to the 
     preceding sentence shall not be subject to review by either 
     the alien or the Department of Justice.
       ``(c) Rights in Hearing.--
       ``(1) Public hearing.--The special removal hearing shall be 
     open to the public.
       ``(2) Right of counsel.--The alien shall have a right to be 
     present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any 
     alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled 
     to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel 
     shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for 
     furnishing representation for any person financially unable 
     to obtain adequate representation for the district in which 
     the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of 
     title 18, United States Code. All provisions of that section 
     shall apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum 
     amount of compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a 
     felony was charged.
       ``(3) Introduction of evidence.--The alien shall have a 
     right to introduce evidence on the alien's own behalf.
       ``(4) Examination of witnesses.--Except as provided in 
     section 506, the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to 
     examine the evidence against the alien and to cross-examine 
     any witness.
       ``(5) Record.--A verbatim record of the proceedings and of 
     all testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a 
     hearing shall be kept.
       ``(6) Decision based on evidence at hearing.--The decision 
     of the judge in the hearing shall be based only on the 
     evidence introduced at the hearing, including evidence 
     introduced under subsection (e).
       ``(7) No right to ancillary relief.--In the hearing, the 
     judge is not authorized to consider or provide for relief 
     from removal based on any of the following:
       ``(A) Asylum under section 208.
       ``(B) Withholding of deportation under section 243(h).
       ``(C) Suspension of deportation under section 244(a) or 
     244(e).
       ``(D) Adjustment of status under section 245.
       ``(E) Registry under section 249.
       ``(d) Subpoenas.--
       ``(1) Request.--At any time prior to the conclusion of the 
     special removal hearing, either the alien or the Department 
     of Justice may request the judge to issue a subpoena for the 
     presence of a named witness (which subpoena may also command 
     the person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, 
     documents, or other objects designated therein) upon a 
     satisfactory showing that the presence of the witness is 
     necessary for the determination of any material matter. Such 
     a request may be made ex parte except that the judge shall 
     inform the Department of Justice of any request for a 
     subpoena by the alien for a witness or material if compliance 
     with such a subpoena would reveal evidence or the source of 
     evidence which has been introduced, or which the Department 
     of Justice has received permission to introduce, in camera 
     and ex parte pursuant to subsection (e) and section 506, and 
     the Department of Justice shall be given a reasonable 
     opportunity to oppose the issuance of such a subpoena.
       ``(2) Payment for attendance.--If an application for a 
     subpoena by the alien also makes a showing that the alien is 
     financially unable to pay for the attendance of a witness so 
     requested, the court may order the costs incurred by the 
     process and the fees of the witness so subpoenaed to be paid 
     from funds appropriated for the enforcement of title II.
       ``(3) Nationwide service.--A subpoena under this subsection 
     may be served anywhere in the United States.
       ``(4) Witness fees.--A witness subpoenaed under this 
     subsection shall receive the same fees and expenses as a 
     witness subpoenaed in connection with a civil proceeding in a 
     court of the United States.
       ``(5) No access to classified information.--Nothing in this 
     subsection is intended to allow an alien to have access to 
     classified information.
       ``(e) Introduction of Classified Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Classified information that has been 
     summarized pursuant to section 506(b) and classified 
     information for which findings described in section 
     506(b)(4)(B) have been made and for which no summary is 
     provided shall be introduced (either in writing or through 
     testimony) in camera and ex parte and neither the alien nor 
     the public shall be informed of such evidence or its sources 
     other than through reference to the summary (if any) provided 
     pursuant to such section. Notwithstanding the previous 
     sentence, the Department of Justice may, in its discretion 
     and after coordination with the originating agency, elect to 
     introduce such evidence in open session.
       ``(2) Treatment of electronic surveillance information.--
       ``(A) Use of electronic surveillance.--The Government is 
     authorized to use in a special removal proceeding the fruits 
     of electronic surveillance and unconsented physical searches 
     authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) without regard to subsections 
     (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of section 106 of that Act.
       ``(B) No discovery of electronic surveillance 
     information.--An alien subject to removal under this title 
     shall have no right of discovery of information derived from 
     electronic surveillance authorized under the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 or otherwise for 
     national security purposes. Nor shall such alien have the 
     right to seek suppression of evidence.
       ``(C) Certain procedures not applicable.--The provisions 
     and requirements of section 3504 of title 18, United States 
     Code, shall not apply to procedures under this title.
       ``(3) Rights of united states.--Nothing in this section 
     shall prevent the United States from seeking protective 
     orders and from asserting privileges ordinarily available to 
     the

[[Page H2153]]

     United States to protect against the disclosure of classified 
     information, including the invocation of the military and 
     state secrets privileges.
       ``(f) Inclusion of Certain Evidence.--The Federal Rules of 
     Evidence shall not apply to hearings under this section. 
     Evidence introduced at the special removal hearing, either in 
     open session or in camera and ex parte, may, in the 
     discretion of the Department of Justice, include all or part 
     of the information presented under section 504 used to obtain 
     the order for the hearing under this section.
       ``(g) Arguments.--Following the receipt of evidence, the 
     attorneys for the Department of Justice and for the alien 
     shall be given fair opportunity to present argument as to 
     whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the removal of 
     the alien. The attorney for the Department of Justice shall 
     open the argument. The attorney for the alien shall be 
     permitted to reply. The attorney for the Department of 
     Justice shall then be permitted to reply in rebuttal. The 
     judge may allow any part of the argument that refers to 
     evidence received in camera and ex parte to be heard in 
     camera and ex parte.
       ``(h) Burden of Proof.--In the hearing the Department of 
     Justice has the burden of showing by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the alien is subject to removal because the 
     alien is an alien terrorist. If the judge finds that the 
     Department of Justice has met this burden, the judge shall 
     order the alien removed and detained pending removal from the 
     United States. If the alien was released pending the special 
     removal hearing, the judge shall order the Attorney General 
     to take the alien into custody.
       ``(i) Written Order.--At the time of rendering a decision 
     as to whether the alien shall be removed, the judge shall 
     prepare a written order containing a statement of facts found 
     and conclusions of law. Any portion of the order that would 
     reveal the substance or source of information received in 
     camera and ex parte pursuant to subsection (e) shall not be 
     made available to the alien or the public.


               ``consideration of classified information

       ``Sec. 506. (a) Consideration In Camera and Ex Parte.--In 
     any case in which the application for the order authorizing 
     the special procedures of this title is approved, the judge 
     who granted the order shall consider each item of classified 
     information the Department of Justice proposes to introduce 
     in camera and ex parte at the special removal hearing and 
     shall order the introduction of such information pursuant 
     to section 505(e) if the judge determines the information 
     to be relevant.
       ``(b) Preparation and Provision of Written Summary.--
       ``(1) Preparation.--The Department of Justice shall prepare 
     a written summary of such classified information which does 
     not pose a risk to national security.
       ``(2) Conditions for approval by judge and provision to 
     alien.--The judge shall approve the summary so long as the 
     judge finds that the summary is sufficient--
       ``(A) to inform the alien of the general nature of the 
     evidence that the alien is an alien terrorist, and
       ``(B) to permit the alien to prepare a defense against 
     deportation.
     The Department of Justice shall cause to be delivered to the 
     alien a copy of the summary.
       ``(3) Opportunity for correction and resubmittal.--If the 
     judge does not approve the summary, the judge shall provide 
     the Department a reasonable opportunity to correct the 
     deficiencies identified by the court and to submit a revised 
     summary.
       ``(4) Conditions for termination of proceedings if summary 
     not approved.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, subsequent to the opportunity 
     described in paragraph (3), the judge does not approve the 
     summary, the judge shall terminate the special removal 
     hearing unless the judge makes the findings described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Findings.--The findings described in this 
     subparagraph are, with respect to an alien, that--
       ``(i) the continued presence of the alien in the United 
     States, and
       ``(ii) the provision of the required summary,
     would likely cause serious and irreparable harm to the 
     national security or death or serious bodily injury to any 
     person.
       ``(5) Continuation of hearing without summary.--If a judge 
     makes the findings described in paragraph (4)(B)--
       ``(A) if the alien involved is an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence, the procedures described in 
     subsection (c) shall apply; and
       ``(B) in all cases the special removal hearing shall 
     continue, the Department of Justice shall cause to be 
     delivered to the alien a statement that no summary is 
     possible, and the classified information submitted in camera 
     and ex parte may be used pursuant to section 505(e).
       ``(c) Special Procedures for Access and Challenges to 
     Classified Information by Special Attorneys in Case of Lawful 
     Permanent Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--The procedures described in this 
     subsection are that the judge (under rules of the special 
     removal court) shall designate a special attorney (as defined 
     in section 501(4)), (and the alien facing deportation under 
     these procedures, may choose which special attorney shall be 
     so designated, if the alien makes that choice not later than 
     45 days after the date on which the alien receives notice 
     that the Government intends to use such procedures) to assist 
     the alien and the court--
       ``(A) by reviewing in camera the classified information on 
     behalf of the alien, and
       ``(B) by challenging through an in camera proceeding the 
     veracity of the evidence contained in the classified 
     information.
       ``(2) Restrictions on disclosure.--A special attorney 
     receiving classified information under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall not disclosure the information to the alien or 
     to any other attorney representing the alien, and
       ``(B) who discloses such information in violation of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to a fine under title 18, 
     United States Code, and imprisoned for not less than 10 years 
     nor more than 25 years.


                               ``appeals

       ``Sec. 507. (a) Appeals of Denials of Applications for 
     Orders.--The Department of Justice may seek a review of the 
     denial of an order sought in an application by the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
     by notice of appeal which must be filed within 20 days after 
     the date of such denial. In such a case the entire record of 
     the proceeding shall be transmitted to the Court of Appeals 
     under seal and the Court of Appeals shall hear the matter ex 
     parte. In such a case the Court of Appeals shall review 
     questions of law de novo, but a prior finding on any question 
     of fact shall not be set aside unless such finding was 
     clearly erroneous.
       ``(b) Appeals of Determinations About Summaries of 
     Classified Information.--Either party may take an 
     interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit of--
       ``(1) any determination by the judge pursuant to section 
     506(a)--
       ``(A) concerning whether an item of evidence may be 
     introduced in camera and ex parte, or
       ``(B) concerning the contents of any summary of evidence to 
     be introduced in camera and ex parte prepared pursuant to 
     section 506(b); or
       ``(2) the refusal of the court to make the findings 
     permitted by section 506(b)(4)(B).
     In any interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to this 
     subsection, the entire record, including any proposed order 
     of the judge or summary of evidence, shall be transmitted to 
     the Court of Appeals under seal and the matter shall be heard 
     ex parte.
       ``(c) Appeals of Decision in Hearing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the decision 
     of the judge after a special removal hearing may be appealed 
     by either the alien or the Department of Justice to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit by notice of appeal.
       ``(2) Automatic appeals in cases of permanent resident 
     aliens in which no summary provided.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless the alien waives the right to a 
     review under this paragraph, in any case involving an alien 
     lawfully admitted for permanent residence who is denied a 
     written summary of classified information under section 
     506(b)(4) and with respect to which the procedures described 
     in section 506(c) apply, any order issued by the judge shall 
     be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
       ``(B) Use of special attorney.--With respect to any issue 
     relating to classified information that arises in such 
     review, the alien shall be represented only by the special 
     attorney designated under section 506(c)(1) on behalf of the 
     alien.
       ``(d) General Provisions Relating to Appeals.--
       ``(1) Notice.--A notice of appeal pursuant to subsection 
     (b) or (c) (other than under subsection (c)(2)) must be filed 
     within 20 days after the date of the order with respect to 
     which the appeal is sought, during which time the order shall 
     not be executed.
       ``(2) Transmittal of record.--In an appeal or review to the 
     Court of Appeals pursuant to subsection (b) or (c)--
       ``(A) the entire record shall be transmitted to the Court 
     of Appeals, and
       ``(B) information received pursuant to section 505(e), and 
     any portion of the judge's order that would reveal the 
     substance or source of such information, shall be transmitted 
     under seal.
       ``(3) Expedited appellate proceeding.--In an appeal or 
     review to the Court of Appeals pursuant to subsection (b) or 
     (c):
       ``(A) Review.--The appeal or review shall be heard as 
     expeditiously as practicable and the Court may dispense with 
     full briefing and hear the matter solely on the record of the 
     judge of the special removal court and on such briefs or 
     motions as the Court may require to be filed by the parties.
       ``(B) Disposition.--The Court shall uphold or reverse the 
     judge's order within 60 days after the date of the issuance 
     of the judge's final order.
       ``(4) Standard for review.--In an appeal or review to the 
     Court of Appeals pursuant to subsection (b) or (c):
       ``(A) Questions of law.--The Court of Appeals shall review 
     all questions of law de novo.
       ``(B) Questions of fact.--(i) Subject to clause (ii), a 
     prior finding on any question of fact shall not be set aside 
     unless such finding was clearly erroneous.
       ``(ii) In the case of a review under subsection (c)(2) in 
     which an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence was 
     denied a written summary of classified information

[[Page H2154]]

     under section 506(b)(4), the Court of Appeals shall review 
     questions of fact de novo.
       ``(e) Certiorari.--Following a decision by the Court of 
     Appeals pursuant to subsection (b) or (c), either the alien 
     or the Department of Justice may petition the Supreme Court 
     for a writ of certiorari. In any such case, any information 
     transmitted to the Court of Appeals under seal shall, if such 
     information is also submitted to the Supreme Court, be 
     transmitted under seal. Any order of removal shall not be 
     stayed pending disposition of a writ of certiorari except as 
     provided by the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Supreme 
     Court.
       ``(f) Appeals of Detention Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.-- The provisions of sections 3145 through 
     3148 of title 18, United States Code, pertaining to review 
     and appeal of a release or detention order, penalties for 
     failure to appear, penalties for an offense committed while 
     on release, and sanctions for violation of a release 
     condition shall apply to an alien to whom section 508(b)(1) 
     applies. In applying the previous sentence--
       ``(A) for purposes of section 3145 of such title an appeal 
     shall be taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit, and
       ``(B) for purposes of section 3146 of such title the alien 
     shall be considered released in connection with a charge of 
     an offense punishable by life imprisonment.
       ``(2) No review of continued detention.--The determinations 
     and actions of the Attorney General pursuant to section 
     508(c)(2)(C) shall not be subject to judicial review, 
     including application for a writ of habeas corpus, except for 
     a claim by the alien that continued detention violates the 
     alien's rights under the Constitution. Jurisdiction over any 
     such challenge shall lie exclusively in the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


                        ``detention and custody

       ``Sec. 508. (a) Initial Custody.--
       ``(1) Upon filing application.--Subject to paragraphs (2) 
     and (3), the Attorney General may take into custody any alien 
     with respect to whom an application under section 503 has 
     been filed and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     may retain such an alien in custody in accordance with the 
     procedures authorized by this title.
       ``(2) Special rules for permanent resident aliens.--An 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence shall be 
     entitled to a release hearing before the judge assigned to 
     hear the special removal hearing. Such an alien shall be 
     detained pending the special removal hearing, unless the 
     alien demonstrates to the court that--
       ``(A) the alien, if released upon such terms and conditions 
     as the court may prescribe (including the posting of any 
     monetary amount), is not likely to flee, and
       ``(B) the alien's release will not endanger national 
     security or the safety of any person or the community.
     The judge may consider classified information submitted in 
     camera and ex parte in making a determination under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Release if order denied and no review sought.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if a judge 
     of the special removal court denies the order sought in an 
     application with respect to an alien and the Department of 
     Justice does not seek review of such denial, the alien shall 
     be released from custody.
       ``(B) Application of regular procedures.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not prevent the arrest and detention of the alien 
     pursuant to title II.
       ``(b) Conditional Release If Order Denied and Review 
     Sought.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a judge of the special removal court 
     denies the order sought in an application with respect to an 
     alien and the Department of Justice seeks review of such 
     denial, the judge shall release the alien from custody 
     subject to the least restrictive condition or combination of 
     conditions of release described in section 3142(b) and 
     clauses (i) through (xiv) of section 3142(c)(1)(B) of title 
     18, United States Code, that will reasonably assure the 
     appearance of the alien at any future proceeding pursuant to 
     this title and will not endanger the safety of any other 
     person or the community.
       ``(2) No release for certain aliens.--If the judge finds no 
     such condition or combination of conditions, the alien shall 
     remain in custody until the completion of any appeal 
     authorized by this title.
       ``(c) Custody and Release After Hearing.--
       ``(1) Release.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if the 
     judge decides pursuant to section 505(i) that an alien should 
     not be removed, the alien shall be released from custody.
       ``(B) Custody pending appeal.--If the Attorney General 
     takes an appeal from such decision, the alien shall remain in 
     custody, subject to the provisions of section 3142 of title 
     18, United States Code.
       ``(2) Custody and removal.--
       ``(A) Custody.--If the judge decides pursuant to section 
     505(i) that an alien shall be removed, the alien shall be 
     detained pending the outcome of any appeal. After the 
     conclusion of any judicial review thereof which affirms the 
     removal order, the Attorney General shall retain the alien in 
     custody and remove the alien to a country specified under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Removal.--
       ``(i) In general.--The removal of an alien shall be to any 
     country which the alien shall designate if such designation 
     does not, in the judgment of the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, impair the 
     obligation of the United States under any treaty (including a 
     treaty pertaining to extradition) or otherwise adversely 
     affect the foreign policy of the United States.
       ``(ii) Alternate countries.--If the alien refuses to 
     designate a country to which the alien wishes to be removed 
     or if the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, determines that removal of the alien to 
     the country so designated would impair a treaty obligation or 
     adversely affect United States foreign policy, the Attorney 
     General shall cause the alien to be removed to any country 
     willing to receive such alien.
       ``(C) Continued detention.--If no country is willing to 
     receive such an alien, the Attorney General may, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, retain the alien 
     in custody. The Attorney General, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of State, shall make periodic efforts to reach 
     agreement with other countries to accept such an alien and at 
     least every 6 months shall provide to the attorney 
     representing the alien at the special removal hearing a 
     written report on the Attorney General's efforts. Any alien 
     in custody pursuant to this subparagraph shall be released 
     from custody solely at the discretion of the Attorney General 
     and subject to such conditions as the Attorney General shall 
     deem appropriate.
       ``(D) Fingerprinting.--Before an alien is transported out 
     of the United States pursuant to this subsection, or pursuant 
     to an order of exclusion because such alien is excludable 
     under section 212(a)(3)(B), the alien shall be photographed 
     and fingerprinted, and shall be advised of the provisions of 
     section 276(b).
       ``(d) Continued Detention Pending Trial.--
       ``(1) Delay in removal.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General may hold in abeyance 
     the removal of an alien who has been ordered removed pursuant 
     to this title to allow the trial of such alien on any Federal 
     or State criminal charge and the service of any sentence of 
     confinement resulting from such a trial.
       ``(2) Maintenance of custody.--Pending the commencement of 
     any service of a sentence of confinement by an alien 
     described in paragraph (1), such an alien shall remain in the 
     custody of the Attorney General, unless the Attorney General 
     determines that temporary release of the alien to the custody 
     of State authorities for confinement in a State facility is 
     appropriate and would not endanger national security or 
     public safety.
       ``(3) Subsequent removal.--Following the completion of a 
     sentence of confinement by an alien described in paragraph 
     (1) or following the completion of State criminal proceedings 
     which do not result in a sentence of confinement of an alien 
     released to the custody of State authorities pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), such an alien shall be returned to the custody 
     of the Attorney General who shall proceed to carry out the 
     provisions of subsection (c)(2) concerning removal of the 
     alien.
       ``(e) Application of Certain Provisions Relating to Escape 
     of Prisoners.--For purposes of sections 751 and 752 of title 
     18, United States Code, an alien in the custody of the 
     Attorney General pursuant to this title shall be subject to 
     the penalties provided by those sections in relation to a 
     person committed to the custody of the Attorney General by 
     virtue of an arrest on a charge of a felony.
       ``(f) Rights of Aliens in Custody.--
       ``(1) Family and attorney visits.--An alien in the custody 
     of the Attorney General pursuant to this title shall be given 
     reasonable opportunity to communicate with and receive visits 
     from members of the alien's family, and to contact, retain, 
     and communicate with an attorney.
       ``(2) Diplomatic contact.--An alien in the custody of the 
     Attorney General pursuant to this title shall have the right 
     to contact an appropriate diplomatic or consular official of 
     the alien's country of citizenship or nationality or of any 
     country providing representation services therefore. The 
     Attorney General shall notify the appropriate embassy, 
     mission, or consular office of the alien's detention.''.
       (b) Jurisdiction Over Exclusion Orders for Alien 
     Terrorists.--Section 106(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following sentence: ``Jurisdiction to review an 
     order entered pursuant to the provisions of section 235(c) 
     concerning an alien excludable under section 212(a)(3)(B) 
     shall rest exclusively in the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit.''.
       (c) Criminal Penalty for Reentry of Alien Terrorists.--
     Section 276(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or'', and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) who has been excluded from the United States pursuant 
     to section 235(c) because the alien was excludable under 
     section 212(a)(3)(B) or who has been removed from the United 
     States pursuant to the provisions of title V, and who 
     thereafter, without the permission of the Attorney General, 
     enters the United States or attempts to do so shall be fined 
     under title 18, United States Code, and imprisoned for a 
     period of 10 years,

[[Page H2155]]

     which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other 
     sentence.''.
       (d) Elimination of Custody Review by Habeas Corpus.--
     Section 106(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)) is amended--
       (1) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8),
       (2) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting a period, and
       (3) by striking paragraph (10).
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to all aliens without regard to the date of 
     entry or attempted entry into the United States.

     SEC. 602. FUNDING FOR DETENTION AND REMOVAL OF ALIEN 
                   TERRORISTS.

       In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year (beginning 
     with fiscal year 1996) $5,000,000 to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service for the purpose of detaining and 
     removing alien terrorists.

      PART 2--EXCLUSION AND DENIAL OF ASYLUM FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS

     SEC. 611. MEMBERSHIP IN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AS GROUND FOR 
                   EXCLUSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
       (B) in subclause (II), by inserting ``engaged in or'' after 
     ``believe,'', and
       (C) by inserting after subclause (II) the following:

       ``(III) is a representative of a terrorist organization, or
       ``(IV) is a member of a terrorist organization which the 
     alien knows or should have known is a terrorist 
     organization,''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Terrorist organization defined.--

       ``(I) Designation.--For purposes of this Act, the term 
     `terrorist organization' means a foreign organization 
     designated in the Federal Register as a terrorist 
     organization by the Secretary of State, in consultation with 
     the Attorney General, based upon a finding that the 
     organization engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist 
     activity that threatens the national security of the United 
     States.
       ``(II) Process.--At least 3 days before designating an 
     organization as a terrorist organization through publication 
     in the Federal Register, the Secretary of State, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, shall notify the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate of the intent to make such designation and the 
     findings and basis for designation. The Secretary of State, 
     in consultation with the Attorney General, shall create an 
     administrative record and may use classified information in 
     making such a designation. Such information is not subject to 
     disclosure so long as it remains classified, except that it 
     may be disclosed to a court ex parte and in camera under 
     subclause (III) for purposes of judicial review of such a 
     designation. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General, shall provide notice and an opportunity for 
     public comment prior to the creation of the administrative 
     record under this subclause.

       ``(III) Judicial review.--Any organization designated as a 
     terrorist organization under the preceding provisions of this 
     clause may, not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     designation, seek judicial review thereof in the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
     Such review shall be based solely upon the administrative 
     record, except that the Government may submit, for ex parte 
     and in camera review, classified information considered in 
     making the designation. The court shall hold unlawful and set 
     aside the designation if the court finds the designation to 
     be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with law, lacking substantial 
     support in the administrative record taken as a whole or in 
     classified information submitted to the court under the 
     previous sentence, contrary to constitutional right, power, 
     privilege, or immunity, or not in accord with the procedures 
     required by law.
       ``(IV) Congressional authority to remove designation.--The 
     Congress reserves the authority to remove, by law, the 
     designation of an organization as a terrorist organization 
     for purposes of this Act.

       ``(V) Sunset.--Subject to subclause (IV), the designation 
     under this clause of an organization as a terrorist 
     organization shall be effective for a period of 2 years from 
     the date of the initial publication of the terrorist 
     organization designation by the Secretary of State. At the 
     end of such period (but no sooner than 60 days prior to the 
     termination of the 2-year-designation period), the Secretary 
     of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, may 
     redesignate the organization in conformity with the 
     requirements of this clause for designation of the 
     organization.
       ``(VI) Other authority to remove designation.--The 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney 
     General, may remove the terrorist organization designation 
     from any organization previously designated as such an 
     organization, at any time, so long as the Secretary publishes 
     notice of the removal in the Federal Register. The Secretary 
     is not required to report to Congress prior to so removing 
     such designation.

       ``(v) Representative defined.--In this subparagraph, the 
     term `representative' includes an officer, official, or 
     spokesman of the organization and any person who directs, 
     counsels, commands or induces the organization or its members 
     to engage in terrorist activity. The determination by the 
     Secretary of State or the Attorney General that an alien is a 
     representative of a terrorist organization shall be subject 
     to judicial review.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 612. DENIAL OF ASYLUM TO ALIEN TERRORISTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 208(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``The Attorney General may not grant 
     an alien asylum if the Attorney General determines that the 
     alien is excludable under subclause (I), (II), or (III) of 
     section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) or deportable under section 
     241(a)(4)(B).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and apply to asylum determinations made on or after such 
     date.

     SEC. 613. DENIAL OF OTHER RELIEF FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS.

       (a) Withholding of Deportation.--Section 243(h)(2) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``For purposes of subparagraph (D), an alien who is described 
     in section 241(a)(4)(B) shall be considered to be an alien 
     for whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a 
     danger to the security of the United States.''.
       (b) Suspension of Deportation.--Section 244(a) of such Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1254(a)) is amended by striking ``section 
     241(a)(4)(D)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) or (D) of 
     section 241(a)(4)''.
       (c) Voluntary Departure.--Section 244(e)(2) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1254(e)(2)) is amended by inserting ``under section 
     241(a)(4)(B) or'' after ``who is deportable''.
       (d) Adjustment of Status.--Section 245(c) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(5)'', and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or (6) an alien who is deportable under 
     section 241(a)(4)(B)''.
       (e) Registry.--Section 249(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1259(d)) is amended by inserting ``and is not deportable 
     under section 241(a)(4)(B)'' after ``ineligible to 
     citizenship''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply to applications filed before, on, or after 
     such date if final action has not been taken on them before 
     such date.
                    Subtitle B--Expedited Exclusion

     SEC. 621. INSPECTION AND EXCLUSION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 235 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b)(1)(A) If the examining immigration officer determines 
     that an alien seeking entry--
       ``(i) is excludable under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 
     212(a)(7), and
       ``(ii) does not indicate either an intention to apply for 
     asylum under section 208 or a fear of persecution,
     the officer shall order the alien excluded from the United 
     States without further hearing or review.
       ``(B) The examining immigration officer shall refer for an 
     interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (C) any 
     alien who is excludable under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 
     212(a)(7) and has indicated an intention to apply for asylum 
     under section 208 or a fear of persecution.
       ``(C)(i) An asylum officer shall promptly conduct 
     interviews of aliens referred under subparagraph (B).
       ``(ii) If the officer determines at the time of the 
     interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution 
     (as defined in clause (v)), the alien shall be detained for 
     an asylum hearing before an asylum officer under section 208.
       ``(iii)(I) Subject to subclause (II), if the officer 
     determines that the alien does not have a credible fear of 
     persecution, the officer shall order the alien excluded from 
     the United States without further hearing or review.
       ``(II) The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to 
     provide for the immediate review by a supervisory asylum 
     office at the port of entry of a determination under 
     subclause (I).
       ``(iv) The Attorney General shall provide information 
     concerning the asylum interview described in this 
     subparagraph to aliens who may be eligible. An alien who is 
     eligible for such interview may consult with a person or 
     persons of the alien's choosing prior to the interview or any 
     review thereof, according to regulations prescribed by the 
     Attorney General. Such consultation shall be at no expense to 
     the Government and shall not delay the process.
       ``(v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `credible 
     fear of persecution' means (I) that it is more probable than 
     not that the statements made by the alien in support of the 
     alien's claim are true, and (II) that there is a significant 
     possibility, in light of such statements and of such other 
     facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could 
     establish eligibility for asylum under section 208.
       ``(D) As used in this paragraph, the term `asylum officer' 
     means an immigration officer who--

[[Page H2156]]

       ``(i) has had professional training in country conditions, 
     asylum law, and interview techniques; and
       ``(ii) is supervised by an officer who meets the condition 
     in clause (i).
       ``(E)(i) An exclusion order entered in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) is not subject to administrative appeal, 
     except that the Attorney General shall provide by regulation 
     for prompt review of such an order against an alien who 
     claims under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury 
     under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, after 
     having been warned of the penalties for falsely making 
     such claim under such conditions, to have been lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence.
       ``(ii) In any action brought against an alien under section 
     275(a) or section 276, the court shall not have jurisdiction 
     to hear any claim attacking the validity of an order of 
     exclusion entered under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), if the 
     examining immigration officer determines that an alien 
     seeking entry is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to 
     enter, the alien shall be detained for a hearing before a 
     special inquiry officer.
       ``(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not apply--
       ``(i) to an alien crewman,
       ``(ii) to an alien described in paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (1)(C)(iii)(I), or
       ``(iii) if the conditions described in section 273(d) 
     exist.
       ``(3) The decision of the examining immigration officer, if 
     favorable to the admission of any alien, shall be subject to 
     challenge by any other immigration officer and such challenge 
     shall operate to take the alien whose privilege to enter is 
     so challenged, before a special inquiry officer for a hearing 
     on exclusion of the alien.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 237(a) of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1227(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Deportation'' and inserting ``Subject to section 235(b)(1), 
     deportation'', and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``If'' and inserting ``Subject to section 235(b)(1), if''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 622. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Preclusion of Judicial Review.--Section 106 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a) is amended--
       (1) by amending the section heading to read as follows:


 ``judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion, and special 
                            exclusion''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except as provided in this subsection, no court shall have 
     jurisdiction to review any individual determination, or to 
     entertain any other cause or claim, arising from or relating 
     to the implementation or operation of section 235(b)(1). 
     Regardless of the nature of the action or claim, or the party 
     or parties bringing the action, no court shall have 
     jurisdiction or authority to enter declaratory, injunctive, 
     or other equitable relief not specifically authorized in this 
     subsection nor to certify a class under Rule 23 of the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       ``(2) Judicial review of any cause, claim, or individual 
     determination covered under paragraph (1) shall only be 
     available in habeas corpus proceedings, and shall be limited 
     to determinations of--
       ``(A) whether the petitioner is an alien, if the petitioner 
     makes a showing that the petitioner's claim of United States 
     nationality is not frivolous;
       ``(B) whether the petitioner was ordered specially excluded 
     under section 235(b)(1)(A); and
       ``(C) whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance 
     of the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence and is entitled to such 
     review as is provided by the Attorney General pursuant to 
     section 235(b)(1)(E)(i).
       ``(3) In any case where the court determines that an alien 
     was not ordered specially excluded, or was not properly 
     subject to special exclusion under the regulations adopted by 
     the Attorney General, the court may order no relief beyond 
     requiring that the alien receive a hearing in accordance with 
     section 236, or a determination in accordance with section 
     235(c) or 273(d).
       ``(4) In determining whether an alien has been ordered 
     specially excluded, the court's inquiry shall be limited to 
     whether such an order was in fact issued and whether it 
     relates to the petitioner.''.
       (b) Preclusion of Collateral Attacks.--Section 235 of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1225) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) In any action brought for the assessment of penalties 
     for improper entry or re-entry of an alien under section 275 
     or section 276, no court shall have jurisdiction to hear 
     claims collaterally attacking the validity of orders of 
     exclusion, special exclusion, or deportation entered under 
     this section or sections 236 and 242.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 106 
     in the table of contents of such Act is amended to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 106. Judicial review of orders of deportation and exclusion, and 
              special exclusion.''.

     SEC. 623. EXCLUSION OF ALIENS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN INSPECTED AND 
                   ADMITTED.

       (a) In General.--Section 241 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, an 
     alien found in the United States who has not been admitted to 
     the United States after inspection in accordance with section 
     235 is deemed for purposes of this Act to be seeking entry 
     and admission to the United States and shall be subject to 
     examination and exclusion by the Attorney General under 
     chapter 4. In the case of such an alien the Attorney General 
     shall provide by regulation an opportunity for the alien to 
     establish that the alien was so admitted.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month 
     beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
            Subtitle C--Improved Information and Processing

                     PART 1--IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES

     SEC. 631. ACCESS TO CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INS FILES THROUGH 
                   COURT ORDER.

       (a) Legalization Program.--Section 245A(c)(5) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(c)(5)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``except that the Attorney 
     General'', and
       (2) by inserting after ``title 13, United States Code'' the 
     following: ``and (ii) may authorize an application to a 
     Federal court of competent jurisdiction for, and a judge of 
     such court may grant, an order authorizing disclosure of 
     information contained in the application of the alien to be 
     used--
       ``(I) for identification of the alien when there is reason 
     to believe that the alien has been killed or severely 
     incapacitated; or
       ``(II) for criminal law enforcement purposes against the 
     alien whose application is to be disclosed if the alleged 
     criminal activity occurred after the legalization application 
     was filed and such activity involves terrorist activity or 
     poses either an immediate risk to life or to national 
     security, or would be prosecutable as an aggravated felony, 
     but without regard to the length of sentence that could be 
     imposed on the applicant''.
       (b) Special Agricultural Worker Program.--Section 210(b) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1160(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``, except as allowed by 
     a court order issued pursuant to paragraph (6)'' after 
     ``consent of the alien'', and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by inserting after subparagraph (C) 
     the following:
     ``Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Attorney General 
     may authorize an application to a Federal court of competent 
     jurisdiction for, and a judge of such court may grant, an 
     order authorizing disclosure of information contained in the 
     application of the alien to be used (i) for identification of 
     the alien when there is reason to believe that the alien has 
     been killed or severely incapacitated, or (ii) for criminal 
     law enforcement purposes against the alien whose application 
     is to be disclosed if the alleged criminal activity occurred 
     after the special agricultural worker application was filed 
     and such activity involves terrorist activity or poses either 
     an immediate risk to life or to national security, or would 
     be prosecutable as an aggravated felony, but without regard 
     to the length of sentence that could be imposed on the 
     applicant.''.

     SEC. 632. WAIVER AUTHORITY CONCERNING NOTICE OF DENIAL OF 
                   APPLICATION FOR VISAS.

       Section 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1182(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (2) by striking ``If'' and inserting ``(1) Subject to 
     paragraph (2), if''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) With respect to applications for visas, the Secretary 
     of State may waive the application of paragraph (1) in the 
     case of a particular alien or any class or classes of aliens 
     excludable under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(3).''.

        PART 2--ASSET FORFEITURE FOR PASSPORT AND VISA OFFENSES

     SEC. 641. CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FOR PASSPORT AND VISA RELATED 
                   OFFENSES.

       Section 982 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after paragraph (5) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted 
     of a violation of, or conspiracy to violate, section 1541, 
     1542, 1543, 1544, or 1546 of this title, or a violation of, 
     or conspiracy to violate, section 1028 of this title if 
     committed in connection with passport or visa issuance or 
     use, shall order that the person forfeit to the United States 
     any property, real or personal, which the person used, or 
     intended to be used, in committing, or facilitating the 
     commission of, the violation, and any property constituting, 
     or derived from, or traceable to, any proceeds the person 
     obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such 
     violation.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ``or (a)(6)'' 
     after ``(a)(2)''.

     SEC. 642. SUBPOENAS FOR BANK RECORDS.

       Section 986(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``1028, 1541, 1542, 1543, 1544, 1546,'' before 
     ``1956''.

     SEC. 643. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on 
     the first day of the first

[[Page H2157]]

     month that begins more than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
    Subtitle D--Employee Verification by Security Services Companies

     SEC. 651. PERMITTING SECURITY SERVICES COMPANIES TO REQUEST 
                   ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 274B(a)(6) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting ``(A) Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (B), for purposes'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a request made in 
     connection with an individual seeking employment in a company 
     (or division of a company) engaged in the business of 
     providing security services to protect persons, institutions, 
     buildings, or other possible targets of international 
     terrorism (as defined in section 2331(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to requests for documents made on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act with respect to individuals 
     who are or were hired before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
          Subtitle E--Criminal Alien Deportation Improvements

     SEC. 661. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Criminal Alien 
     Deportation Improvements Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 662. ADDITIONAL EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF AGGRAVATED 
                   FELONY.

       (a) In General.--Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)), as amended by section 
     222 of the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections 
     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-416), is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (J), by inserting ``, or an offense 
     described in section 1084 (if it is a second or subsequent 
     offense) or 1955 of that title (relating to gambling 
     offenses),'' after ``corrupt organizations)'';
       (2) in subparagraph (K)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i),
       (B) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii), and
       (C) by inserting after clause (i) the following new clause:
       ``(ii) is described in section 2421, 2422, or 2423 of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to transportation for the 
     purpose of prostitution) for commercial advantage; or'';
       (3) by amending subparagraph (N) to read as follows:
       ``(N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of 
     section 274(a) (relating to alien smuggling) for which the 
     term of imprisonment imposed (regardless of any suspension of 
     imprisonment) is at least 5 years;'';
       (4) by amending subparagraph (O) to read as follows:
       ``(O) an offense (i) which either is falsely making, 
     forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering a passport 
     or instrument in violation of section 1543 of title 18, 
     United States Code, or is described in section 1546(a) of 
     such title (relating to document fraud) and (ii) for which 
     the term of imprisonment imposed (regardless of any 
     suspension of such imprisonment) is at least 18 months;''
       (5) in subparagraph (P), by striking ``15 years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years'', and by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (6) by redesignating subparagraphs (O), (P), and (Q) as 
     subparagraphs (P), (Q), and (U), respectively;
       (7) by inserting after subparagraph (N) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(O) an offense described in section 275(a) or 276 
     committed by an alien who was previously deported on the 
     basis of a conviction for an offense described in another 
     subparagraph of this paragraph;''; and
       (8) by inserting after subparagraph (Q), as so 
     redesignated, the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(R) an offense relating to commercial bribery, 
     counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the 
     identification numbers of which have been altered for which a 
     sentence of 5 years' imprisonment or more may be imposed;
       ``(S) an offense relating to obstruction of justice, 
     perjury or subornation of perjury, or bribery of a witness, 
     for which a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment or more may be 
     imposed;
       ``(T) an offense relating to a failure to appear before a 
     court pursuant to a court order to answer to or dispose of a 
     charge of a felony for which a sentence of 2 years' 
     imprisonment or more may be imposed; and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to convictions entered on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, except that the amendment made by 
     subsection (a)(3) shall take effect as if included in the 
     enactment of section 222 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Technical Corrections Act of 1994.

     SEC. 663. DEPORTATION PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS 
                   WHO ARE NOT PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

       (a) Administrative Hearings.--Section 242A(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252a(b)), as added 
     by section 130004(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``or'', and
       (B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) had permanent resident status on a conditional basis 
     (as described in section 216) at the time that proceedings 
     under this section commenced.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``30 calendar days'' and 
     inserting ``14 calendar days'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``proccedings'' and 
     inserting ``proceedings'';
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (B) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(D) such proceedings are conducted in, or translated for 
     the alien into, a language the alien understands;
       ``(E) a determination is made for the record at such 
     proceedings that the individual who appears to respond in 
     such a proceeding is an alien subject to such an expedited 
     proceeding under this section and is, in fact, the alien 
     named in the notice for such proceeding;''.
       (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) No alien described in this section shall be eligible 
     for any relief from deportation that the Attorney General may 
     grant in the Attorney General's discretion.''.
       (b) Limit on Judicial Review.--Subsection (d) of section 
     106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1105a), 
     as added by section 130004(b) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), a petition for review 
     or for habeas corpus on behalf of an alien described in 
     section 242A(c) may only challenge whether the alien is in 
     fact an alien described in such section, and no court shall 
     have jurisdiction to review any other issue.''.
       (c) Presumption of Deportability.--Section 242A of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252a) is amended 
     by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Presumption of Deportability.--An alien convicted of 
     an aggravated felony shall be conclusively presumed to be 
     deportable from the United States.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to all aliens against whom deportation 
     proceedings are initiated after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 664. RESTRICTING THE DEFENSE TO EXCLUSION BASED ON 7 
                   YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENCE FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL 
                   ALIENS.

       The last sentence of section 212(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``has served for such felony or felonies'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``has been sentenced 
     for such felony or felonies to a term of imprisonment of at 
     least 5 years, if the time for appealing such conviction or 
     sentence has expired and the sentence has become final.''.

     SEC. 665. LIMITATION ON COLLATERAL ATTACKS ON UNDERLYING 
                   DEPORTATION ORDER.

       (a) In General.--Section 276 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien 
     may not challenge the validity of the deportation order 
     described in subsection (a)(1) or subsection (b) unless the 
     alien demonstrates that--
       ``(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that 
     may have been available to seek relief against the order;
       ``(2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was 
     issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for 
     judicial review; and
       ``(3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to criminal proceedings initiated after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 666. CRIMINAL ALIEN IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM.

       Section 130002(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) Operation and Purpose.--The Commissioner of 
     Immigration and Naturalization shall, under the authority of 
     section 242(a)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(3)(A)), operate a criminal alien 
     identification system. The criminal alien identification 
     system shall be used to assist Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies in identifying and locating aliens who 
     may be subject to deportation by reason of their conviction 
     of aggravated felonies.''.

     SEC. 667. ESTABLISHING CERTAIN ALIEN SMUGGLING-RELATED CRIMES 
                   AS RICO-PREDICATE OFFENSES.

       Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``section 1028 (relating to fraud and 
     related activity in connection with identification documents) 
     if the act indictable under section 1028 was committed for 
     the purpose of financial gain,'' before ``section 1029'';
       (2) by inserting ``section 1542 (relating to false 
     statement in application and use of passport) if the act 
     indictable under section 1542 was committed for the purpose 
     of financial gain, section 1543 (relating to forgery or

[[Page H2158]]

     false use of passport) if the act indictable under section 
     1543 was committed for the purpose of financial gain, section 
     1544 (relating to misuse of passport) if the act indictable 
     under section 1544 was committed for the purpose of financial 
     gain, section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, 
     permits, and other documents) if the act indictable under 
     section 1546 was committed for the purpose of financial gain, 
     sections 1581-1588 (relating to peonage and slavery),'' after 
     ``section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, 
     victim, or an informant),'';
       (3) by striking ``or'' before ``(E)''; and
       (4) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or (F) any act which is indictable under the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to 
     bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 
     (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 
     United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 
     alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such 
     section of such Act was committed for the purpose of 
     financial gain''.

     SEC. 668. AUTHORITY FOR ALIEN SMUGGLING INVESTIGATIONS.

       Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (n),
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (o) as paragraph (p), and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (n) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(o) a felony violation of section 1028 (relating to 
     production of false identification documents), section 1542 
     (relating to false statements in passport applications), 
     section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, 
     and other documents) of this title or a violation of section 
     274, 277, or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (relating to the smuggling of aliens); or''.

     SEC. 669. EXPANSION OF CRITERIA FOR DEPORTATION FOR CRIMES OF 
                   MORAL TURPITUDE.

       (a) In General.--Section 241(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1251(a)(2)(A)(i)(II)) is amended to read as follows:

       ``(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one 
     year or longer may be imposed,''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to aliens against whom deportation proceedings 
     are initiated after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 670. PAYMENTS TO POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FOR COSTS OF 
                   INCARCERATING ILLEGAL ALIENS.

       Amounts appropriated to carry out section 501 of the 
     Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for fiscal year 
     1995 shall be available to carry out section 242(j) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act in that fiscal year with 
     respect to undocumented criminal aliens incarcerated under 
     the authority of political subdivisions of a State.

     SEC. 671. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Use of Electronic and Telephonic Media in Deportation 
     Hearings.--The second sentence of section 242(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(b)) is amended 
     by inserting before the period the following: ``; except that 
     nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Attorney 
     General from authorizing proceedings by electronic or 
     telephonic media (with the consent of the alien) or, where 
     waived or agreed to by the parties, in the absence of the 
     alien''.
       (b) Codification.--
       (1) Section 242(i) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(i)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or 
     procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by 
     any party against the United States or its agencies or 
     officers or any other person.''.
       (2) Section 225 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-416) is 
     amended by striking ``and nothing in'' and all that follows 
     through ``1252(i))''.
       (3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take 
     effect as if included in the enactment of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-416).

     SEC. 672. CONSTRUCTION OF EXPEDITED DEPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       No amendment made by this Act shall be construed to create 
     any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is 
     legally enforceable by any party against the United States or 
     its agencies or officers or any other person.

     SEC. 673. STUDY OF PRISONER TRANSFER TREATY WITH MEXICO.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and 
     the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a report 
     that describes the use and effectiveness of the Prisoner 
     Transfer Treaty with Mexico (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Treaty'') to remove from the United States aliens who 
     have been convicted of crimes in the United States.
       (b) Use of Treaty.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following information:
       (1) The number of aliens convicted of a criminal offense in 
     the United States since November 30, 1977, who would have 
     been or are eligible for transfer pursuant to the Treaty.
       (2) The number of aliens described in paragraph (1) who 
     have been transferred pursuant to the Treaty.
       (3) The number of aliens described in paragraph (2) who 
     have been incarcerated in full compliance with the Treaty.
       (4) The number of aliens who are incarcerated in a penal 
     institution in the United States who are eligible for 
     transfer pursuant to the Treaty.
       (5) The number of aliens described in paragraph (4) who are 
     incarcerated in State and local penal institutions.
       (c) Effectiveness of Treaty.--The report under subsection 
     (a) shall include the recommendations of the Secretary of 
     State and the Attorney General to increase the effectiveness 
     and use of, and full compliance with, the Treaty. In 
     considering the recommendations under this subsection, the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General shall consult with such 
     State and local officials in areas disproportionately 
     impacted by aliens convicted of criminal offenses as the 
     Secretary and the Attorney General consider appropriate. Such 
     recommendations shall address the following areas:
       (1) Changes in Federal laws, regulations, and policies 
     affecting the identification, prosecution, and deportation of 
     aliens who have committed a criminal offense in the United 
     States.
       (2) Changes in State and local laws, regulations, and 
     policies affecting the identification, prosecution, and 
     deportation of aliens who have committed a criminal offense 
     in the United States.
       (3) Changes in the Treaty that may be necessary to increase 
     the number of aliens convicted of crimes who may be 
     transferred pursuant to the Treaty.
       (4) Methods for preventing the unlawful re-entry into the 
     United States of aliens who have been convicted of criminal 
     offenses in the United States and transferred pursuant to the 
     Treaty.
       (5) Any recommendations of appropriate officials of the 
     Mexican Government on programs to achieve the goals of, and 
     ensure full compliance with, the Treaty.
       (6) An assessment of whether the recommendations under this 
     subsection require the renegotiation of the Treaty.
       (7) The additional funds required to implement each 
     recommendation under this subsection.

     SEC. 674. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE IN BRINGING TO 
                   JUSTICE ALIENS WHO FLEE PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES 
                   IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Assistance to States.--The Attorney General, in 
     cooperation with the Commissioner of Immigration and 
     Naturalization and the Secretary of State, shall designate an 
     office within the Department of Justice to provide technical 
     and prosecutorial assistance to States and 
     political subdivisions of States in efforts to bring to 
     justice aliens who flee prosecution for crimes in the 
     United States.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     compile and submit to the Congress a report which assesses 
     the nature and extent of the problem of bringing to justice 
     aliens who flee prosecution for crimes in the United States.

     SEC. 675. PRISONER TRANSFER TREATIES.

       (a) Negotiation.--Congress advises the President to begin 
     to negotiate and renegotiate, not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, bilateral prisoner 
     transfer treaties. The focus of such negotiations shall be to 
     expedite the transfer of aliens unlawfully in the United 
     States who are incarcerated in United States prisons, to 
     ensure that a transferred prisoner serves the balance of the 
     sentence imposed by the United States courts, and to 
     eliminate any requirement of prisoner consent to such a 
     transfer.
       (b) Certification.--The President shall submit to the 
     Congress, annually, a certification as to whether each 
     prisoner transfer treaty in force is effective in returning 
     aliens unlawfully in the United States who have committed 
     offenses for which they are incarcerated in the United States 
     to their country of nationality for further incarceration.

     SEC. 676. INTERIOR REPATRIATION PROGRAM.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration 
     and Naturalization shall develop and implement a program in 
     which aliens who previously have illegally entered the United 
     States not less than 3 times and are deported or returned to 
     a country contiguous to the United States will be returned to 
     locations not less than 500 kilometers from that country's 
     border with the United States.

     SEC. 677. DEPORTATION OF NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS PRIOR TO 
                   COMPLETION OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 242(h) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1252(h)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(h)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an alien 
     sentenced to imprisonment may not be deported until such 
     imprisonment has been terminated by the release of the alien 
     from confinement. Parole, supervised release, probation, or 
     possibility of rearrest or further confinement in respect of 
     the same offense shall not be a ground for deferral of 
     deportation.
       ``(2) The Attorney General is authorized to deport an alien 
     in accordance with applicable procedures under this Act prior 
     to the completion of a sentence of imprisonment--
       ``(A) in the case of an alien in the custody of the 
     Attorney General, if the Attorney

[[Page H2159]]

     General determines that (i) the alien is confined pursuant to 
     a final conviction for a nonviolent offense (other than alien 
     smuggling), and (ii) such deportation of the alien is 
     appropriate and in the best interest of the United States; or
       ``(B) in the case of an alien in the custody of a State (or 
     a political subdivision of a State), if the chief State 
     official exercising authority with respect to the 
     incarceration of the alien determines that (i) the alien is 
     confined pursuant to a final conviction for a nonviolent 
     offense (other than alien smuggling), (ii) such deportation 
     is appropriate and in the best interest of the State, and 
     (iii) submits a written request to the Attorney General that 
     such alien be so deported.
       ``(3) Any alien deported pursuant to this subsection shall 
     be notified of the penalties under the laws of the United 
     States relating to the reentry of deported aliens, 
     particularly the expanded penalties for aliens deported under 
     paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Reentry of Alien Deported Prior to Completion of Term 
     of Imprisonment.--Section 276 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326) amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Any alien deported pursuant to section 242(h)(2) who 
     enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the 
     United States (unless the Attorney General has expressly 
     consented to such alien's reentry) shall be incarcerated for 
     the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment which was 
     pending at the time of deportation without any reduction for 
     parole or supervised release. Such alien shall be subject to 
     such other penalties relating to the reentry of deported 
     aliens as may be available under this section or any other 
     provision of law.''.
                  TITLE VII--AUTHORIZATION AND FUNDING

     SEC. 701. FIREFIGHTER AND EMERGENCY SERVICES TRAINING.

       The Attorney General may award grants in consultation with 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of 
     providing specialized training or equipment to enhance the 
     capability of metropolitan fire and emergency service 
     departments to respond to terrorist attacks. To carry out the 
     purposes of this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 702. ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO PROCURE 
                   EXPLOSIVE DETECTION DEVICES AND OTHER COUNTER-
                   TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY.

       There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to the President 
     to provide assistance to foreign countries facing an imminent 
     danger of terrorist attack that threatens the national 
     interest of the United States or puts United States nationals 
     at risk--
       (1) in obtaining explosive detection devices and other 
     counter-terrorism technology; and
       (2) in conducting research and development projects on such 
     technology.

     SEC. 703. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT COUNTER-
                   TERRORISM TECHNOLOGIES.

       There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 to the National Institute of Justice Science and 
     Technology Office--
       (1) to develop technologies that can be used to combat 
     terrorism, including technologies in the areas of--
       (A) detection of weapons, explosives, chemicals, and 
     persons;
       (B) tracking;
       (C) surveillance;
       (D) vulnerability assessment; and
       (E) information technologies;
       (2) to develop standards to ensure the adequacy of products 
     produced and compatibility with relevant national systems; 
     and
       (3) to identify and assess requirements for technologies to 
     assist State and local law enforcement in the national 
     program to combat terrorism.
                       TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 801. STUDY OF STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 
                   PURCHASE AND USE OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES.

       The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall conduct a study of 
     State licensing requirements for the purchase and use of 
     commercial high explosives, including detonators, detonating 
     cords, dynamite, water gel, emulsion, blasting agents, and 
     boosters. Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress 
     the results of this study, together with any recommendations 
     the Secretary determines are appropriate.

     SEC. 802. COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF TERRORISM.

       (a) Requiring Compensation for Terrorist Crimes.--Section 
     1403(d)(3) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
     10603(d)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``crimes involving terrorism,'' before 
     ``driving while intoxicated''; and
       (2) by inserting a comma after ``driving while 
     intoxicated''.
       (b) Foreign Terrorism.--Section 1403(b)(6)(B) of the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603(b)(6)(B)) is 
     amended by inserting ``are outside the United States (if the 
     compensable crime is terrorism, as defined in section 2331 of 
     title 18, United States Code), or'' before ``are States not 
     having''.

     SEC. 803. JURISDICTION FOR LAWSUITS AGAINST TERRORIST STATES.

       (a) Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunity for Certain 
     Cases.--Section 1605 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) not otherwise covered by paragraph (2), in which 
     money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal 
     injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, 
     extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or 
     the provision of material support or resources (as defined in 
     section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such act or 
     provision of material support is engaged in by an official, 
     employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within 
     the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, except 
     that--
       ``(A) an action under this paragraph shall not be 
     instituted unless the claimant first affords the foreign 
     state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in 
     accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration;
       ``(B) an action under this paragraph shall not be 
     maintained unless the act upon which the claim is based 
     occurred while the individual bringing the claim was a 
     national of the United States (as that term is defined in 
     section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act); 
     and
       ``(C) the court shall decline to hear a claim under this 
     paragraph if the foreign state against whom the claim has 
     been brought establishes that procedures and remedies are 
     available in such state which comport with fundamental 
     fairness and due process.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) For purposes of paragraph (7) of subsection (a)--
       ``(1) the terms `torture' and `extrajudicial killing' have 
     the meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture 
     Victim Protection Act of 1991;
       ``(2) the term `hostage taking' has the meaning given that 
     term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the 
     Taking of Hostages; and
       ``(3) the term `aircraft sabotage' has the meaning given 
     that term in Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression 
     of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation.''.
       (b) Exception to Immunity From Attachment.--
       (1) Foreign state.--Section 1610(a) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) the judgment relates to a claim for which the foreign 
     state is not immune under section 1605(a)(7), regardless of 
     whether the property is or was involved with the act upon 
     which the claim is based.''.
       (2) Agency or instrumentality.--Section 1610(b)(2) of such 
     title is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or (5)'' and inserting ``(5), or (7)''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``used for the activity'' and inserting 
     ``involved in the act''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this title shall 
     apply to any cause of action arising before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 804. STUDY OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL 
                   ON THE MAKING OF BOMBS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, 
                   AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General, in consultation with such 
     other officials and individuals as the Attorney General deems 
     appropriate, shall conduct a study concerning--
       (1) the extent to which there are available to the public 
     material in any medium (including print, electronic, or film) 
     that instructs how to make bombs, other destructive devices, 
     and weapons of mass destruction;
       (2) the extent to which information gained from such 
     material has been used in incidents of domestic and 
     international terrorism;
       (3) the likelihood that such information may be used in 
     future incidents of terrorism; and
       (4) the application of existing Federal laws to such 
     material, the need and utility, if any, for additional laws, 
     and an assessment of the extent to which the First Amendment 
     protects such material and its private and commercial 
     distribution.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     the Congress a report that contains the results of the study 
     required by this section. The Attorney General shall make the 
     report available to the public.

     SEC. 805. COMPILATION OF STATISTICS RELATING TO INTIMIDATION 
                   OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) threats of violence and acts of violence are mounting 
     against Federal, State, and local government employees and 
     their families in attempts to stop public servants from 
     performing their lawful duties;
       (2) these acts are a danger to our constitutional form of 
     government; and
       (3) more information is needed as to the extent of the 
     danger and its nature so that steps can be taken to protect 
     public servants at all levels of government in the 
     performance of their duties.

[[Page H2160]]

       (b) Statistics.--The Attorney General shall acquire data, 
     for the calendar year 1990 and each succeeding calendar year 
     about crimes and incidents of threats of violence and acts of 
     violence against Federal, State, and local government 
     employees in performance of their lawful duties. Such data 
     shall include--
       (1) in the case of crimes against such employees, the 
     nature of the crime; and
       (2) in the case of incidents of threats of violence and 
     acts of violence, including verbal and implicit threats 
     against such employees, whether or not criminally punishable, 
     which deter the employees from the performance of their jobs.
       (c) Guidelines.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     guidelines for the collection of such data, including what 
     constitutes sufficient evidence of noncriminal incidents 
     required to be reported.
       (d) Annual Publishing.--The Attorney General shall publish 
     an annual summary of the data acquired under this section. 
     Otherwise such data shall be used only for research and 
     statistical purposes.
       (e) Exemption.--The United States Secret Service is not 
     required to participate in any statistical reporting activity 
     under this section with respect to any direct or indirect 
     threats made against any individual for whom the United 
     States Secret Service is authorized to provide protection.

     SEC. 806. VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT OF 1995.

       (a) Order of Restitution.--Section 3663 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``may order, in addition to or, in the case 
     of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty authorized by 
     law'' and inserting ``shall order''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The requirement 
     of this paragraph does not affect the power of the court to 
     impose any other penalty authorized by law. In the case of a 
     misdemeanor, the court may impose restitution in lieu of any 
     other penalty authorized by law.'';
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) In addition to ordering restitution to the victim of 
     the offense of which a defendant is convicted, a court may 
     order restitution to any person who, as shown by a 
     preponderance of evidence, was harmed physically, 
     emotionally, or pecuniarily, by unlawful conduct of the 
     defendant during--
       ``(A) the criminal episode during which the offense 
     occurred; or
       ``(B) the course of a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of 
     unlawful activity related to the offense.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B) by striking ``impractical'' and 
     inserting ``impracticable'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2) by inserting ``emotional or'' 
     after ``resulting in'';
       (4) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income and 
     necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses 
     related to participation in the investigation or prosecution 
     of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the 
     offense; and'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``If the court decides to 
     order restitution under this section, the'' and inserting 
     ``The'';
       (6) by striking subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h);
       (7) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (m); and
       (8) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) The court shall order restitution to a victim in 
     the full amount of the victim's losses as determined by the 
     court and without consideration of--
       ``(A) the economic circumstances of the offender; or
       ``(B) the fact that a victim has received or is entitled to 
     receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or 
     any other source.
       ``(2) Upon determination of the amount of restitution owed 
     to each victim, the court shall specify in the restitution 
     order the manner in which and the schedule according to which 
     the restitution is to be paid, in consideration of--
       ``(A) the financial resources and other assets of the 
     offender;
       ``(B) projected earnings and other income of the offender; 
     and
       ``(C) any financial obligations of the offender, including 
     obligations to dependents.
       ``(3) A restitution order may direct the offender to make a 
     single, lump-sum payment, partial payment at specified 
     intervals, or such in-kind payments as may be agreeable to 
     the victim and the offender. A restitution order shall direct 
     the offender to give appropriate notice to victims and other 
     persons in cases where there are multiple victims or other 
     persons who may receive restitution, and where the identity 
     of such victims and other persons can be reasonably 
     determined.
       ``(4) An in-kind payment described in paragraph (3) may be 
     in the form of--
       ``(A) return of property;
       ``(B) replacement of property; or
       ``(C) services rendered to the victim or to a person or 
     organization other than the victim.
       ``(e) When the court finds that more than 1 offender has 
     contributed to the loss of a victim, the court may make each 
     offender liable for payment of the full amount of restitution 
     or may apportion liability among the offenders to reflect the 
     level of contribution and economic circumstances of each 
     offender.
       ``(f) When the court finds that more than 1 victim has 
     sustained a loss requiring restitution by an offender, the 
     court shall order full restitution to each victim but may 
     provide for different payment schedules to reflect the 
     economic circumstances of each victim.
       ``(g)(1) If the victim has received or is entitled to 
     receive compensation with respect to a loss from insurance or 
     any other source, the court shall order that restitution be 
     paid to the person who provided or is obligated to provide 
     the compensation, but the restitution order shall provide 
     that all restitution to victims required by the order be paid 
     to the victims before any restitution is paid to such a 
     provider of compensation.
       ``(2) The issuance of a restitution order shall not affect 
     the entitlement of a victim to receive compensation with 
     respect to a loss from insurance or any other source until 
     the payments actually received by the victim under the 
     restitution order fully compensate the victim for the loss, 
     at which time a person that has provided compensation to the 
     victim shall be entitled to receive any payments remaining to 
     be paid under the restitution order.
       ``(3) Any amount paid to a victim under an order of 
     restitution shall be set off against any amount later 
     recovered as compensatory damages by the victim in--
       ``(A) any Federal civil proceeding; and
       ``(B) any State civil proceeding, to the extent provided by 
     the law of the State.
       ``(h) A restitution order shall provide that--
       ``(1) all fines, penalties, costs, restitution payments and 
     other forms of transfers of money or property made pursuant 
     to the sentence of the court shall be made by the offender to 
     an entity designated by the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts for accounting and payment 
     by the entity in accordance with this subsection;
       ``(2) the entity designated by the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall--
       ``(A) log all transfers in a manner that tracks the 
     offender's obligations and the current status in meeting 
     those obligations, unless, after efforts have been made to 
     enforce the restitution order and it appears that compliance 
     cannot be obtained, the court determines that continued 
     recordkeeping under this subparagraph would not be useful; 
     and
       ``(B) notify the court and the interested parties when an 
     offender is 30 days in arrears in meeting those obligations; 
     and
       ``(3) the offender shall advise the entity designated by 
     the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts of any change in the offender's address during 
     the term of the restitution order.
       ``(i) A restitution order shall constitute a lien against 
     all property of the offender and may be recorded in any 
     Federal or State office for the recording of liens against 
     real or personal property.
       ``(j) Compliance with the schedule of payment and other 
     terms of a restitution order shall be a condition of any 
     probation, parole, or other form of release of an offender. 
     If a defendant fails to comply with a restitution order, the 
     court may revoke probation or a term of supervised release, 
     modify the term or conditions of probation or a term of 
     supervised release, hold the defendant in contempt of court, 
     enter a restraining order or injunction, order the sale of 
     property of the defendant, accept a performance bond, or take 
     any other action necessary to obtain compliance with the 
     restitution order. In determining what action to take, the 
     court shall consider the defendant's employment status, 
     earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness in 
     failing to comply with the restitution order, and any other 
     circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's 
     ability to comply with the restitution order.
       ``(k) An order of restitution may be enforced--
       ``(1) by the United States--
       ``(A) in the manner provided for the collection and payment 
     of fines in subchapter B of chapter 229 of this title; or
       ``(B) in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action; 
     and
       ``(2) by a victim named in the order to receive the 
     restitution, in the same manner as a judgment in a civil 
     action.
       ``(l) A victim or the offender may petition the court at 
     any time to modify a restitution order as appropriate in view 
     of a change in the economic circumstances of the offender.''.
       (b) Procedure for Issuing Order of Restitution.--Section 
     3664 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d);
       (3) by amending subsection (a), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(a) The court may order the probation service of the 
     court to obtain information pertaining to the amount of loss 
     sustained by any victim as a result of the offense, the 
     financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and 
     earning ability of the defendant and the defendant's 
     dependents, and such other factors as the court deems 
     appropriate. The probation service of the court shall include 
     the information collected in the report of presentence 
     investigation or in a separate report, as the court 
     directs.''; and

[[Page H2161]]

       (4) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) The court may refer any issue arising in connection 
     with a proposed order of restitution to a magistrate or 
     special master for proposed findings of fact and 
     recommendations as to disposition, subject to a de novo 
     determination of the issue by the court.''.
                     TITLE IX--HABEAS CORPUS REFORM

     SEC. 901. FILING DEADLINES.

       Section 2244 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an 
     application for a write of habeas corpus by a person in 
     custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The 
     limitation period shall run from the latest of--
       ``(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the 
     conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for 
     seeking such review;
       ``(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an 
     application created by State action in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the 
     applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
       ``(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted 
     was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right 
     has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made 
     retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or
       ``(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim 
     or claims presented could have been discovered through the 
     exercise of due diligence.
       ``(2) The time during which a properly filed application 
     for State post-conviction or other collateral review with 
     respect to the pertinent judgment or claim shall not be 
     counted toward any period of limitation under this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 902. APPEAL.

       Section 2253 of title 28, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2253. Appeal

       ``(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under 
     section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall 
     be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for 
     the circuit in which the proceeding is held.
       ``(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order 
     in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove 
     to another district or place for commitment or trial a person 
     charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or 
     to test the validity of such person's detention pending 
     removal proceedings.
       ``(c)(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 
     certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to 
     the court of appeals from--
       ``(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in 
     which the detention complained of arises out of process 
     issued by a State court; or
       ``(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
       ``(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under 
     paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial 
     showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
       ``(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) 
     shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the 
     showing required by paragraph (2).''.

     SEC. 903. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

       Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``Rule 22. Habeas corpus and section 2255 proceedings

       ``(a) Application for the Original Writ.--An application 
     for a writ of habeas corpus shall be made to the appropriate 
     district court. If application is made to a circuit judge, 
     the application shall be transferred to the appropriate 
     district court. If an application is made to or transferred 
     to the district court and denied, renewal of the application 
     before a circuit judge shall not be permitted. The applicant 
     may, pursuant to section 2253 of title 28, United States 
     Code, appeal to the appropriate court of appeals from the 
     order of the district court denying the writ.
       ``(b) Certificate of Appealability.--In a habeas corpus 
     proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 
     process issued by a State court, an appeal by the applicant 
     for the writ may not proceed unless a district or a circuit 
     judge issues a certificate of appealability pursuant to 
     section 2253(c) of title 28, United States Code. If an appeal 
     is taken by the applicant, the district judge who rendered 
     the judgment shall either issue a certificate of 
     appealability or state the reasons why such a certificate 
     should not issue. The certificate or the statement shall be 
     forwarded to the court of appeals with the notice of appeal 
     and the file of the proceedings in the district court. If the 
     district judge has denied the certificate, the applicant for 
     the writ may then request issuance of the certificate by a 
     circuit judge. If such a request is addressed to the court of 
     appeals, it shall be deemed addressed to the judges thereof 
     and shall be considered by a circuit judge or judges as the 
     court deems appropriate. If no express request for a 
     certificate is filed, the notice of appeal shall be deemed to 
     constitute a request addressed to the judges of the court of 
     appeals. If an appeal is taken by a State or its 
     representative, a certificate of appealability is not 
     required.''.

     SEC. 904. SECTION 2254 AMENDMENTS.

       Section 2254 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on 
     behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 
     State court shall not be granted unless it appears that--
       ``(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in 
     the courts of the State; or
       ``(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective 
     process; or
       ``(ii) circumstances exist that render such process 
     ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
       ``(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be 
     denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the 
     applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of 
     the State.
       ``(3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the 
     exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the 
     requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly 
     waives the requirement.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf 
     of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State 
     court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was 
     adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless 
     the adjudication of the claim--
       ``(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or 
     involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 
     Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United 
     States; or
       ``(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an 
     unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
     evidence presented in the State court proceeding.'';
       (4) by amending subsection (e), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) In a proceeding instituted by an application for a 
     writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the 
     judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue 
     made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct. The 
     applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the 
     presumption of correctness by clear and convincing 
     evidence.
       ``(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual 
     basis of a claim in State court proceedings, the court shall 
     not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the 
     applicant shows that--
       ``(A) the claim relies on--
       ``(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 
     cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was 
     previously unavailable; or
       ``(ii) a factual predicate that could not have been 
     previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence; 
     and
       ``(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to 
     establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for 
     constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have 
     found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(h) Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act, in all proceedings brought under this 
     section, and any subsequent proceedings on review, the court 
     may appoint counsel for an applicant who is or becomes 
     financially unable to afford counsel, except as provided by a 
     rule promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory 
     authority. Appointment of counsel under this section shall be 
     governed by section 3006A of title 18.
       ``(i) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during 
     Federal or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall 
     not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under 
     section 2254.''.

     SEC. 905. SECTION 2255 AMENDMENTS.

       Section 2255 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the second and fifth undesignated 
     paragraphs; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new undesignated 
     paragraphs:
       ``A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion 
     under this section. The limitation period shall run from the 
     latest of--
       ``(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes 
     final;
       ``(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion 
     created by governmental action in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the 
     movant was prevented from making a motion by such 
     governmental action;
       ``(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially 
     recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly 
     recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively 
     applicable to cases on collateral review; or
       ``(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or 
     claims presented could have been discovered through the 
     exercise of due diligence.
       ``Except as provided in section 408 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act, in all proceedings brought under this 
     section, and any subsequent proceedings on review, the court 
     may appoint counsel for a movant who is or becomes 
     financially unable to afford counsel shall be in the 
     discretion of the court, except as provided by a rule 
     promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory 
     authority. Appointment of counsel under this section shall be 
     governed by section 3006A of title 18.

[[Page H2162]]

       ``A second or successive motion must be certified as 
     provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court 
     of appeals to contain--
       ``(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed 
     in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 
     establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable 
     factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; 
     or
       ``(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 
     cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was 
     previously unavailable.''.

     SEC. 906. LIMITS ON SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Conforming Amendment to Section 2244(a).--Section 
     2244(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``and the petition'' and all that follows through 
     ``by such inquiry.'' and inserting ``, except as provided in 
     section 2255.''.
       (b) Limits on Second or Successive Applications.--Section 
     2244(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 
     corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a 
     prior application shall be dismissed.
       ``(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas 
     corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented 
     in a prior application shall be dismissed unless--
       ``(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new 
     rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 
     collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 
     unavailable; or
       ``(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have 
     been discovered previously through the exercise of due 
     diligence; and
       ``(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed 
     in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to 
     establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 
     constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have 
     found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
       ``(3)(A) Before a second or successive application 
     permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the 
     applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for 
     an order authorizing the district court to consider the 
     application.
       ``(B) A motion in the court of appeals for an order 
     authorizing the district court to consider a second or 
     successive application shall be determined by a three-judge 
     panel of the court of appeals.
       ``(C) The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a 
     second or successive application only if it determines that 
     the application makes a prima facie showing that the 
     application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
       ``(D) The court of appeals shall grant or deny the 
     authorization to file a second or successive application not 
     later than 30 days after the filing of the motion.
       ``(E) The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of 
     appeals to file a second or successive application shall not 
     be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for 
     rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.
       ``(4) A district court shall dismiss any claim presented in 
     a second or successive application that the court of appeals 
     has authorized to be filed unless the applicant shows that 
     the claim satisfies the requirements of this section.''.

     SEC. 907. DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Addition of Chapter to Title 28, United States Code.--
     Title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 153 the following new chapter:

    ``CHAPTER 154--SPECIAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURES IN CAPITAL CASES

``Sec.
``2261. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital sentence; 
              appointment of counsel; requirement of rule of court or 
              statute; procedures for appointment.
``2262. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits on stays of 
              execution; successive petitions.
``2263. Filing of habeas corpus application; time requirements; tolling 
              rules.
``2264. Scope of Federal review; district court adjudications.
``2265. Application to State unitary review procedure.
``2266. Limitation periods for determining applications and motions.

     ``Sec. 2261. Prisoners in State custody subject to capital 
       sentence; appointment of counsel; requirement of rule of 
       court or statute; procedures for appointment

       ``(a) This chapter shall apply to cases arising under 
     section 2254 brought by prisoners in State custody who are 
     subject to a capital sentence. It shall apply only if the 
     provisions of subsections (b) and (c) are satisfied.
       ``(b) This chapter is applicable if a State establishes by 
     statute, rule of its court of last resort, or by another 
     agency authorized by State law, a mechanism for the 
     appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable 
     litigation expenses of competent counsel in State post-
     conviction proceedings brought by indigent prisoners whose 
     capital convictions and sentences have been upheld on direct 
     appeal to the court of last resort in the State or have 
     otherwise become final for State law purposes. The rule of 
     court or statute must provide standards of competency for the 
     appointment of such counsel.
       ``(c) Any mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and 
     reimbursement of counsel as provided in subsection (b) must 
     offer counsel to all State prisoners under capital sentence 
     and must provide for the entry of an order by a court of 
     record--
       ``(1) appointing one or more counsels to represent the 
     prisoner upon a finding that the prisoner is indigent and 
     accepted the offer or is unable competently to decide whether 
     to accept or reject the offer;
       ``(2) finding, after a hearing if necessary, that the 
     prisoner rejected the offer of counsel and made the decision 
     with an understanding of its legal consequences; or
       ``(3) denying the appointment of counsel upon a finding 
     that the prisoner is not indigent.
       ``(d) No counsel appointed pursuant to subsections (b) and 
     (c) to represent a State prisoner under capital sentence 
     shall have previously represented the prisoner at trial or on 
     direct appeal in the case for which the appointment is made 
     unless the prisoner and counsel expressly request continued 
     representation.
       ``(e) The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during 
     State or Federal post-conviction proceedings in a capital 
     case shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising 
     under section 2254. This limitation shall not preclude the 
     appointment of different counsel, on the court's own motion 
     or at the request of the prisoner, at any phase of State or 
     Federal post-conviction proceedings on the basis of the 
     ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel in such 
     proceedings.

     ``Sec. 2262. Mandatory stay of execution; duration; limits on 
       stays of execution; successive petitions

       ``(a) Upon the entry in the appropriate State court of 
     record of an order under section 2261(c), a warrant or order 
     setting an execution date for a State prisoner shall be 
     stayed upon application to any court that would have 
     jurisdiction over any proceedings filed under section 2254. 
     The application shall recite that the State has invoked the 
     post-conviction review procedures of this chapter and that 
     the scheduled execution is subject to stay.
       ``(b) A stay of execution granted pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall expire if--
       ``(1) a State prisoner fails to file a habeas corpus 
     application under section 2254 within the time required in 
     section 2263;
       ``(2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, in the 
     presence of counsel, unless the prisoner has competently and 
     knowingly waived such counsel, and after having been advised 
     of the consequences, a State prisoner under capital sentence 
     waives the right to pursue habeas corpus review under section 
     2254; or
       ``(3) a State prisoner files a habeas corpus petition under 
     section 2254 within the time required by section 2263 and 
     fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a 
     Federal right or is denied relief in the district court or at 
     any subsequent stage of review.
       ``(c) If one of the conditions in subsection (b) has 
     occurred, no Federal court thereafter shall have the 
     authority to enter a stay of execution in the case, unless 
     the court of appeals approves the filing of a second or 
     successive application under section 2244(b).

     ``Sec. 2263. Filing of habeas corpus application; time 
       requirements; tolling rules

       ``(a) Any application under this chapter for habeas corpus 
     relief under section 2254 must be filed in the appropriate 
     district court not later than 180 days after final State 
     court affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct 
     review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.
       ``(b) The time requirements established by subsection (a) 
     shall be tolled--
       ``(1) from the date that a petition for certiorari is filed 
     in the Supreme Court until the date of final disposition of 
     the petition if a State prisoner files the petition to secure 
     review by the Supreme Court of the affirmance of a capital 
     sentence on direct review by the court of last resort of the 
     State or other final State court decision on direct review;
       ``(2) from the date on which the first petition for post-
     conviction review or other collateral relief is filed until 
     the final State court disposition of such petition; and
       ``(3) during an additional period not to exceed 30 days, 
     if--
       ``(A) a motion for an extension of time is filed in the 
     Federal district court that would have jurisdiction over the 
     case upon the filing of a habeas corpus application under 
     section 2254; and
       ``(B) a showing of good cause is made for the failure to 
     file the habeas corpus application within the time period 
     established by this section.

     ``Sec. 2264. Scope of Federal review; district court 
       adjudications

       ``(a) Whenever a State prisoner under capital sentence 
     files a petition for habeas corpus relief to which this 
     chapter applies, the district court shall only consider a 
     claim or claims that have been raised and decided on the 
     merits in the State courts, unless the failure to raise the 
     claim properly is--
       ``(1) the result of State action in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States;
       ``(2) the result of the Supreme Court recognition of a new 
     Federal right that is made retroactively applicable; or
       ``(3) based on a factual predicate that could not have been 
     discovered through the exercise of due diligence in time to 
     present the claim for State or Federal post-conviction 
     review.
       ``(b) Following review subject to subsections (a), (d), and 
     (e) of section 2254, the court shall rule on the claims 
     properly before it.

[[Page H2163]]

     ``Sec. 2265. Application to State unitary review procedure

       ``(a) For purposes of this section, a `unitary review' 
     procedure means a State procedure that authorizes a person 
     under sentence of death to raise, in the course of direct 
     review of the judgment, such claims as could be raised on 
     collateral attack. This chapter shall apply, as provided in 
     this section, in relation to a State unitary review procedure 
     if the State establishes by rule of its court of last resort 
     or by statute a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, 
     and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent 
     counsel in the unitary review proceedings, including expenses 
     relating to the litigation of collateral claims in the 
     proceedings. The rule of court or statute must provide 
     standards of competency for the appointment of such counsel.
       ``(b) To qualify under this section, a unitary review 
     procedure must include an offer of counsel following trial 
     for the purpose of representation on unitary review, and 
     entry of an order, as provided in section 2261(c), concerning 
     appointment of counsel or waiver or denial of appointment of 
     counsel for that purpose. No counsel appointed to represent 
     the prisoner in the unitary review proceedings shall have 
     previously represented the prisoner at trial in the case for 
     which the appointment is made unless the prisoner and counsel 
     expressly request continued representation.
       ``(c) Sections 2262, 2263, 2264, and 2266 shall apply in 
     relation to cases involving a sentence of death from any 
     State having a unitary review procedure that qualifies under 
     this section. References to State `post-conviction review' 
     and `direct review' in such sections shall be understood as 
     referring to unitary review under the State procedure. The 
     reference in section 2262(a) to `an order under section 
     2261(c)' shall be understood as referring to the post-trial 
     order under subsection (b) concerning representation in the 
     unitary review proceedings, but if a transcript of the trial 
     proceedings is unavailable at the time of the filing of such 
     an order in the appropriate State court, then the start of 
     the 180-day limitation period under section 2263 shall be 
     deferred until a transcript is made available to the prisoner 
     or counsel of the prisoner.

     ``Sec. 2266. Limitation periods for determining applications 
       and motions

       ``(a) The adjudication of any application under section 
     2254 that is subject to this chapter, and the adjudication of 
     any motion under section 2255 by a person under sentence of 
     death, shall be given priority by the district court and by 
     the court of appeals over all noncapital matters.
       ``(b)(1)(A) A district court shall render a final 
     determination and enter a final judgment on any application 
     for a writ of habeas corpus brought under this chapter in a 
     capital case not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the application is filed.
       ``(B) A district court shall afford the parties at least 
     120 days in which to complete all actions, including the 
     preparation of all pleadings and briefs, and if necessary, a 
     hearing, prior to the submission of the case for decision.
       ``(C)(i) A district court may delay for not more than one 
     additional 30-day period beyond the period specified in 
     subparagraph (A), the rendering of a determination of an 
     application for a writ of habeas corpus if the court issues a 
     written order making a finding, and stating the reasons for 
     the finding, that the ends of justice that would be served by 
     allowing the delay outweigh the best interests of the public 
     and the applicant in a speedy disposition of the application.
       ``(ii) The factors, among others, that a court shall 
     consider in determining whether a delay in the disposition of 
     an application is warranted are as follows:
       ``(I) Whether the failure to allow the delay would be 
     likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
       ``(II) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to 
     the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or 
     the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is 
     unreasonable to expect adequate briefing within the time 
     limitations established by subparagraph (A).
       ``(III) Whether the failure to allow a delay in a case, 
     that, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as 
     described in subclause (II), but would otherwise deny the 
     applicant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would 
     unreasonably deny the applicant or the government continuity 
     of counsel, or would deny counsel for the applicant or the 
     government the reasonable time necessary for effective 
     preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 
     diligence.
       ``(iii) No delay in disposition shall be permissible 
     because of general congestion of the court's calendar.
       ``(iv) The court shall transmit a copy of any order issued 
     under clause (i) to the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts for inclusion in the report under 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(2) The time limitations under paragraph (1) shall apply 
     to--
       ``(A) an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus;
       ``(B) any second or successive application for a writ of 
     habeas corpus; and
       ``(C) any redetermination of an application for a writ of 
     habeas corpus following a remand by the court of appeals or 
     the Supreme Court for further proceedings, in which case the 
     limitation period shall run from the date the remand is 
     ordered.
       ``(3)(A) The time limitations under this section shall not 
     be construed to entitle an applicant to a stay of execution, 
     to which the applicant would otherwise not be entitled, for 
     the purpose of litigating any application or appeal.
       ``(B) No amendment to an application for a writ of habeas 
     corpus under this chapter shall be permitted after the filing 
     of the answer to the application, except on the grounds 
     specified in section 2244(b).
       ``(4)(A) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a 
     time limitation under this section shall not be a ground for 
     granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence.
       ``(B) The State may enforce a time limitation under this 
     section by petitioning for a writ of mandamus to the court of 
     appeals. The court of appeals shall act on the petition for a 
     writ or mandamus not later than 30 days after the filing of 
     the petition.
       ``(5)(A) The Administrative Office of United States Courts 
     shall submit to Congress an annual report on the compliance 
     by the district courts with the time limitations under this 
     section.
       ``(B) The report described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     include copies of the orders submitted by the district courts 
     under paragraph (1)(B)(iv).
       ``(c)(1)(A) A court of appeals shall hear and render a 
     final determination of any appeal of an order granting or 
     denying, in whole or in part, an application brought under 
     this chapter in a capital case not later than 120 days after 
     the date on which the reply brief is filed, or if no reply 
     brief is filed, not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which the answering brief is filed.
       ``(B)(i) A court of appeals shall decide whether to grant a 
     petition for rehearing or other request for rehearing en banc 
     not later than 30 days after the date on which the petition 
     for rehearing is filed unless a responsive pleading is 
     required, in which case the court shall decide whether to 
     grant the petition not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the responsive pleading is filed.
       ``(ii) If a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc is 
     granted, the court of appeals shall hear and render a final 
     determination of the appeal not later than 120 days after the 
     date on which the order granting rehearing or rehearing en 
     banc is entered.
       ``(2) The time limitations under paragraph (1) shall apply 
     to--
       ``(A) an initial application for a writ of habeas corpus;
       ``(B) any second or successive application for a writ of 
     habeas corpus; and
       ``(C) any redetermination of an application for a writ of 
     habeas corpus or related appeal following a remand by the 
     court of appeals en banc or the Supreme Court for further 
     proceedings, in which case the limitation period shall run 
     from the date the remand is ordered.
       ``(3) The time limitations under this section shall not be 
     construed to entitle an applicant to a stay of execution, to 
     which the applicant would otherwise not be entitled, for the 
     purpose of litigating any application or appeal.
       ``(4)(A) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a 
     time limitation under this section shall not be a ground for 
     granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence.
       ``(B) The State may enforce a time limitation under this 
     section by applying for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme 
     Court.
       ``(5) The Administrative Office of United States Courts 
     shall submit to Congress an annual report on the compliance 
     by the courts of appeals with the time limitations under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part VI of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to chapter 153 the 
     following new item:

``154.  Special  habeas  corpus  procedures  in  capital cas2261''.....

       (c) Effective Date.--Chapter 154 of title 28, United States 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)) shall apply to cases 
     pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 908. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 408(q) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     848(q)) is amended by amending paragraph (9) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(9) Upon a finding that investigative, expert, or other 
     services are reasonably necessary for the representation of 
     the defendant, whether in connection with issues relating to 
     guilt or the sentence, the court may authorize the 
     defendant's attorneys to obtain such services on behalf of 
     the defendant and, if so authorized, shall order the payment 
     of fees and expenses therefor under paragraph (10). No ex 
     parte proceeding, communication, or request may be considered 
     pursuant to this section unless a proper showing is made 
     concerning the need for confidentiality. Any such proceeding, 
     communication, or request shall be transcribed and made a 
     part of the record available for appellate review.''.

     SEC. 909. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this 
     title, or the application of such provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this title, the amendments made by this 
     title, and the application of the provisions of such to any 
     person or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendments are in order except the amendments 
printed in House Report 104-480 and amendments en bloc described in 
section 2 of

[[Page H2164]]

House Resolution 380. Amendments printed in the report shall be 
considered in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as having been read, 
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 
Debate time for each amendment shall be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution 
and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by 
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote by electronic device without intervening business, 
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary or a designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of or germane 
modifications of such amendments.
  The amendments en bloc shall be considered read--except that 
modifications shall be reported--shall not be subject to amendment or 
to a demand for a division of the question, and shall be debatable for 
20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.
  The original proponents of the amendments en bloc shall have 
permission to insert statements in the Congressional Record immediately 
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 104-480.


                  amendment no. 1 offered by mr. hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hyde: On the first page, 
     beginning in line 4, strike ``Comprehensive'' and all that 
     follows through ``1995'' in line 5 and insert ``Effective 
     Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``should have known'' and insert 
     ``has reasonable cause to believe''.
       Page 34, strike line 19 and all that follows through the 
     matter appearing before line 3 on page 47, and redesignate 
     succeeding sections and any cross references (including the 
     table of contents) accordingly.
       Page 137, line 15, insert ``the court shall decline to hear 
     a claim under this paragraph'' after ``except that''.
       Page 137, beginning in line 16, strike ``an action under'' 
     and all that follows through ``affords'' ending in line 18, 
     and insert ``if the act occurred in the foreign state against 
     which the claim has been brought and the claimant has not 
     afforded''.
       Page 137, beginning in line 21, strike ``an action under'' 
     and all that follows through ``national'' and insert ``if the 
     claimant or victim was not a national''.
       Page 138, line 2, insert ``when the act upon which the 
     claim is based occurred'' after ``Act)''.
       Page 138, line 2, strike ``and'' and insert ``or''.
       Page 138, line 3, strike ``the court shall'' and all that 
     follows through ``has been brought'' in line 5, and insert 
     ``if the act occurred in the foreign state against which the 
     claim has been brought and that state''.
       Page 138, beginning in line 9, strike ``new subsection''.
       Page 138, line 22, strike the close quotation mark and the 
     period that follows it.
       Page 138, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(f) No action shall be maintained under subsection (a)(7) 
     unless the action is commenced not later than 10 years after 
     the date on which the cause of action arose. All principles 
     of equitable tolling, including the period during which the 
     foreign state was immune from suit, shall apply in 
     calculating this limitation period.''.
       Page 151, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 807. OVERSEAS LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING ACTIVITIES.

       The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is 
     authorized to support law enforcement training activities in 
     foreign countries for the purpose of improving the 
     effectiveness of the United States in investigating and 
     prosecuting transnational offenses.

     SEC. 808. CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISED COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR 
                   VICTIMS OF CRIME.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the contrary, in order 
     to permit victims of crime to watch criminal trial 
     proceedings in cases where the venue of the trial is 
     changed--
       (1) out of the State in which the case was initially 
     brought; and
       (2) more than 350 miles from the location in which those 
     proceedings originally would have taken place;

     the courts involved shall, if donations under subsection (b) 
     will defray the entire cost of doing so, order closed circuit 
     televising of the proceedings to that location, for viewing 
     by such persons the courts determine have a compelling 
     interest in doing so and are otherwise unable to do so by 
     reason of the inconvenience and expense caused by the change 
     of venue.
       (b) No Rebroadcast.--No rebroadcast of the proceedings 
     shall be made.
       (c) Limited Access.--
       (1) Generally.--No other person, other than official court 
     and security personnel, or other persons specifically 
     designated by the courts, shall be permitted to view the 
     closed televising of the proceedings.
       (2) Exception.--The courts shall not designate a person 
     under paragraph (1) if the presiding judge at the trial 
     determines that testimony by that person would be materially 
     affected if that person heard other testimony at the trial.
       (d) Donations.--The Administrative Office of the United 
     States Courts may accept donations to enable the courts to 
     carry out subsection (a). No appropriated money shall be used 
     to carry out such subsection
       (e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``State'' includes the District of Columbia and any other 
     possession or territory of the United States.
       Modify the table of contents accordingly.
       Page 52, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 17 
     on page 53.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly, and modify 
     cross references and the table of contents accordingly.
       Page 125, strike line 13 and all that follows through line 
     20.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly, and modify 
     cross references and the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment that we are 
discussing now changes the short title of the bill to the ``Effective 
Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996.''
  It conforms the language in section 102, ``prohibiting material 
support to terrorists,'' to the language already used in section 204. 
In other words, it says, ``has reasonable cause to believe,'' instead 
of ``should have known.'' This amendment would codify current case law 
on actual and constructive knowledge of criminal activity.
  This amendment strikes both section 302 and section 303. Section 302 
has to do with disclosure of certain consumer reports to the FBI, and 
section 303 has to do with disclosure of business records held by third 
parties in foreign counterintelligence cases. Both of those sections 
are stricken in their entirety.
  Next, the amendment amends section 803, having to do with 
jurisdiction for lawsuits against terrorist states, which in turn 
amends the existing Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. section 
1602-1611. This section would allow lawsuits by U.S. citizens against 
terrorist states who are responsible for state-sponsored torture, 
extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage-taking, or the 
provision of material support or resources for such acts which result 
in death or personal injury.
  The manager's amendment would change the language in the committee-
reported bill requiring that plaintiffs filing suit under this section 
must first give the foreign state an opportunity to arbitrate the 
claim. The manager's amendment would only require pretrial arbitration 
if the terrorist act upon which the lawsuit is based occurred within 
the boundaries of the country being sued.
  The manager's amendment also contains a statute of limitations 
provision for such suits. The manager's amendment makes it clear that 
these lawsuits must be filed within 10 years after the terrorist act, 
but allows cases to be filed after the enactment of this provision, so 
long as the suit was previously blocked in Federal court based upon 
sovereign immunity grounds.

[[Page H2165]]

  This amendment provides for closed circuit televised court 
proceedings to allow victims to watch a criminal trial where the trial 
is moved out of the State and a significant distance from where it 
originally would have taken place; that is, Oklahoma City to Denver. 
The provision authorizes the acceptance of donations to pay the cost. 
No new spending is authorized.
  The amendment adds section 807, giving the FBI authority to conduct 
law enforcement training and instruction to foreign law enforcement 
officers in order to improve the effectiveness of the United States in 
investigating and prosecuting transnational criminal offenses. With so 
many countries emerging from Soviet dominance, it is imperative that 
the United States establish ties and help create professional law 
enforcement organizations so that our efforts to investigate and 
prosecute international criminal offenses is enhanced.
  The amendment also strikes section 310 of the bill, relating to the 
Attorney General's reward authority. This provision violates rule XXI, 
clause 5(a), of the House rules in that it would provide different uses 
for appropriated funds than those which were originally intended. In 
addition, reward authority for the Attorney General has been enacted 
into law elsewhere. The Justice Department supports this change.
  Lastly, the amendment strikes section 670 of the bill because it also 
violates rule XXI, clause 5(a), of the rules of the House. It proposed 
to allocate fiscal year 1995 funds for the Department of Justice for 
purposes other than those originally intended in that appropriations 
bill. Moreover, the provision is moot because all fiscal 1995 
appropriations have already been expended.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] seek the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan will be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment is not all bad. There are parts 
of it with which I think those of us on our side would agree.
  It does, however, raise issues which were not debated or even 
discussed during the committee markup. Why do we stay for weeks and 
months in the committee and then come on the floor to get the latest 
version? I agree that obligation to require pretrial arbitration and 
lawsuits against terrorist states where terrorism occurs outside our 
Nation's borders is a good idea. But why not go all the way and 
eliminate this procedural obstacle completely, as does Conyers-Nadler?
  That is the difference. We are not talking about whether these are 
good points or bad points. We are talking about which one is better, 
which one is more complete, how one deals more effectively with 
antiterrorism. Here is a very compelling example. In Conyers-Nadler-
Berman, we have the stronger protections for United States citizens who 
are the victims of violence in terrorist states like Libya by allowing 
the suits against the terrorist nations to be brought directly in the 
United States court.
  Notice that, please. Mr. Chairman, this is not fine print. This is a 
huge, enormous difference in dealing with the people that everybody 
keeps decrying that we have to deal with. This is not rhetoric. We are 
talking about whose bill is going to be more effective.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 
prevents suits against foreign governments, even if they sponsor 
terrorism. This manager's amendment by my friend, the chairman, will 
allow such suits against foreign terrorists in some instances. We allow 
it in the U.S. courts in all instances. Please, this is a very 
important distinction. I therefore, reluctantly, oppose the manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, as well 
as the legislation to which it is offered.
  Mr. Chairman, in Oklahoma City last April 19 when we had the horrific 
bombing that occurred, several things happened that have still not come 
to rest that affect the 168 families of the 168 people that were killed 
in that explosion.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, the 
chairman, has incorporated in this amendment language that was 
suggested to him by my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Lucas; language that was suggested to him by myself, and language that 
I know Senator Nickles has expressed great interest in.
  Mr. Chairman, the trial has been moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, 
a distance of some 600 miles. When we have 168 stricken families with 
spouses, husbands, fathers, children, grandparents, grandchildren, and 
other relatives, all of whom have a great interest in the trial 
proceedings, we need to understand that we have a law on the books that 
says a victim of a violent crime has a statutory right to attend the 
trial. But unfortunately, when this many people desire to attend the 
trial to exercise their right as victims, they cannot do so if the 
trial has been moved 600 miles away. It is a great understaking and a 
great difficulty.
  Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, this portion of the amendment specifies 
that shall be a closed circuit rebroadcast back to the original 
location, to Oklahoma City, for the benefit of those who are victims 
and have the right to attend that trial, who have a great desire and 
interest and a need to attend that trial.
  Mr. Chairman, the language has safeguards. The proceedings are not to 
be rebroadcast elsewhere. They are not available for Court TV or CNN or 
anyone else that might wish to do so, because we want to minimize the 
disruptive effect that some might fear would otherwise occur. Certainly 
the judge retains his ability to say, if someone is a witness who might 
be affected by hearing the proceedings, then they can be excluded, as 
the law already requires.
  But to the people who otherwise would have to relocate 600 miles for 
who knows how long, for an extended period of time, because of this 
trial, this takes into account their need. This allows them to exercise 
their rights as victims, for what little comfort and help it might be 
to them; but whatever we can provide to them, we certainly want to do. 
Mr. Chairman, this makes that possible.

  I was pleased to hear this morning, Mr. Chairman, that the Judicial 
Conference of the United States has endorsed this approach. It is a 
very narrowly crafted exception to the normal rule against televising 
criminal proceedings in Federal court; but it will be of great benefit, 
we hope, for those who had family members who suffered either by loss 
of life of injury in that terrible explosion.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the death penalty reform provisions in this 
measure are very important to those same family members. As one person 
who lost a family member said to me, she does not want her newborn 
child to grow to adulthood before she can experience the resolution of 
knowing that the person or persons responsible have been brought to 
justice, and that justice, including the death penalty, can be carried 
out on that person. We do not want these persons to have those multiple 
years of uncertainty which this bill will remove by reforming the death 
penalty procedure so, again it can be swift as well as sure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, for putting in a bill that strikes a delicate compromise 
between those who would cry out for personal freedom and those who 
understand and recognize the tremendous threat to national security 
that terrorism poses to Americans, both here and abroad.
  I rise today in support of the amendment and to the underlying bill, 
H.R. 2703. This is a bill that goes a long way toward enabling us as a 
Nation to protect ourselves from terrorism. Providing physical security 
is, and it should

[[Page H2166]]

be, the first order of business of any government.
  The preamble to the United States Constitution states that the 
foundational reason the Federal Government is formed is to establish 
justice and to ensure domestic tranquility. Undoubtedly, as the 
Oklahoma bombing and the bombing of the World Trade Center have 
reminded us, the presence of terrorists is both home-grown and abroad. 
They are here in our communities and they are there overseas. Recent 
events in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Israel and Japan have also 
demonstrated how tragically simple it is to commit terrorist acts in a 
crowded place.
  What terrorism does is to create a paralyzing fear in a targeted 
populace. It is murder for political gain. Taking precautions against 
terrorist acts does not allow the terrorists to win, as some have 
suggested, but rather it renders terrorists impotent by eliminating 
access and the means to perpetrate the terrorism.
  What we seek to do here today is to strike a balance between 
preserving freedoms we hold so dear and still protecting ourselves from 
terrorist acts. Our society places an extremely high value on liberty 
and privacy, but this bill does not compromise it. How free are we if 
we live in constant fear of organized murder on a massive scale in the 
places we work, travel, and live? This bill achieves a balance by 
combating this threat while maintaining the values that make America 
the freest Nation in the world.

                              {time}  1345

  This bill is a good compromise and collectively reflects society's 
outrage and commitment to defeating terrorism here and abroad. It ends 
the spectacle of organizations like Hamas raising millions of dollars 
here in America to finance terrorism and murder abroad, including 
murder of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Hyde's 
amendment to H.R. 2703. I support this amendment because among other 
things, it provides for closed-circuit broadcating of court proceedings 
in cases where a trial has been moved out of State, and more than 350 
miles from the location where the proceedings would have taken place. I 
appreciate the chairman and his staff's efforts on this provision.
  As the Member of Congress who represents downtown Oklahoma City, I 
believe this provision is crucial, especially in light of the upcoming 
trial of the suspects in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building. 
Recently, this trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver, and the 
judge ruled cameras impermissible in the courtroom.
  For the victims and survivors of this, the worst terrorist attack to 
occur on U.S. soil, the trial and any subsequent punishment of those 
who committed this heinous crime are part of the healing process. For 
most, this is a time to rebuild their lives, therefore the upheaval of 
going to Denver to watch the trial seems cruel and unfair.
  I believe victims deserve the opportunity to view the trial of those 
accused of committing a crime. Although it is uncommon for a trial to 
be moved out of state, this manager's amendment would provide relief 
for those victims. This is the least we can do for those that 
experience such a great loss.
  Support the manager's amendment and show your support for victims of 
crime.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


                  amendment no. 2 offered by mr. barr

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

                  amendment no 2. offered by mr. barr:

       Page 28, strike lines 10 through 20, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 112. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ASSESSING AND 
                   REDUCING THE THREAT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 
                   FROM THE CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS AND 
                   AMMUNITION.

       (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the 
     Attorney General, shall conduct a study and make 
     recommendations concerning--
       (1) the extent and nature of the deaths and serious 
     injuries, in the line of duty during the last decade, for law 
     enforcement officers, including--
       (A) those officers who were feloniously killed or seriously 
     injured and those that died or were seriously injured as a 
     result of accidents or other non-felonious causes; and
       (B) those officers feloniously killed or seriously injured 
     with firearms, those killed or seriously injured with, 
     separately, handguns firing handgun caliber ammunition, 
     handguns firing rifle caliber ammunition, rifles firing rifle 
     caliber ammunition, rifles firing handgun caliber ammunition 
     and shotguns; and
       (C) those officers feloniously killed or seriously injured 
     with firearms, and killings or serious injuries committed 
     with firearms taken by officers' assailants from officers, 
     and those committed with other officers' firearms; and
       (D) those killed or seriously injured because shots 
     attributable to projectiles defined as ``armor piercing 
     ammunition'' under 18, Sec. 921(a)(17)(B)(i) and (ii) pierced 
     the protective material of bullet resistant vests or bullet 
     resistant headgear; and
       (2) whether current passive defensive strategies, such as 
     body armor, are adequate to counter the criminal use of 
     firearms against law officers; and
       (3) the calibers of ammunition that are--
       (A) sold in the greatest quantities; and
       (B) their common uses, according to consultations with 
     industry, sporting organizations and law enforcement; and
       (C) the calibers commonly used for civilian defensive or 
     sporting uses that would be affected by any prohibition on 
     non-law enforcement sales of such ammunition, if such 
     ammunition is capable of penetrating minimum level bullet 
     resistant vests; and
       (D) recommendations for increase in body armor capabilities 
     to further protect law enforcement from threat.
       (b) In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult 
     with other Federal, State and local officials, non-
     governmental organizations, including all national police 
     organizations, national sporting organizations and national 
     industry associations with expertise in this area and such 
     other individuals as shall be deemed necessary. Such study 
     shall be presented to Congress twelve months after the 
     enactment of this Act and made available to the public, 
     including any data tapes or data used to form such 
     recommendations.
       (c) There are authorized to be appropriated for the study 
     and recommendations such sums as may be necessary.
       Page 34, strike line 6, and all that follows through the 
     matter following line 2 but before line 3 on page 47.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 48, strike lines 3 through 14.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 63, strike line 14 and all that follows through line 
     23 on page 94.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 95, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 
     17 on page 100.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``or should have known''.
       Page 32, line 22, strike the one-m dash and all that 
     follows through ``(2)'' on page 33, run in the material 
     before and after the matter so stricken, and realign the 
     margins of lines 1 through 5 on page 33 so as to be flush to 
     the margin.
       Page 47, after line 22, insert the following:
       (b) Exclusion.--No study undertaken under this section 
     shall include black or smokeless powder among the explosive 
     materials considered.
       Page 47, line 23, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 49, strike line 12 and all that follows through line 7 
     on page 51.
       Redsignate succeeding sections accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
claim the 30 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are debating here today fundamentally important 
legislation. It is fundamentally important legislation because there is 
no more basic, more critical, more fundamental and more important duty 
of our Government than to protect its citizens, their homes, their 
businesses, our public institutions from acts of terrorism, from acts 
perpetrated by criminals in whatever capacity whatsoever.

[[Page H2167]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important as we debate this 
important bill, the effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 
1996, to be careful and mindful of how best to frame the debate over 
these issues.
  I do not think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to think of our 
framing this debate in terms of preventing every act of terrorism. If 
we framed the debate thusly, then we would be forever frustrated in our 
analysis, in our efforts, because we will never stop criminal 
activities, no matter how many laws we pass, no matter how effectively 
or how broadly all of those criminal laws are enforced.
  Rather, Mr. Chairman, we need to keep this debate focused on two 
things. First, Mr. Chairman, how can we most effectively and most 
comprehensively minimize the chances for acts of terror being committed 
against our citizens, our institutions, and our homes? The second point 
that we must keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, throughout this and other 
debates that we will have in this great body, is how would we do so, 
how do we pass laws that minimize the chance for terrorist acts and 
other criminal acts being committed, balanced against the very 
important, fundamentally important civil liberties that all of us here 
in this country enjoy enshrined in that great document, our 
Constitution.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the balancing of these concerns is fundamental 
to the very makeup, the very structure of our Government; the balance 
between individual freedom and government power, and another balance 
that is important to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, the balance between 
government accountability and absolute government power.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill that we are considering here today, crafted 
in large part by my esteemed colleague from Illinois, the great 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in almost every respect properly 
balances those concerns, and indeed should be a hallmark for the 
American people to look to in terms of how to craft legislation that 
does protect our citizens while being mindful of the important civil 
liberties guaranteed to all of us.

  But, Mr. Chairman, I have before this House today at this time an 
amendment that includes several provisions that I believe strengthen 
that balance on the side of protecting individual liberties, while at 
the same time giving to the Government those tools that it needs to 
effectively investigate and prosecute acts of terror.
  With regard to the various provisions in H.R. 2703 that my amendment 
seeks to delete, Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important to note 
that in many of these instances I have proposed their deletion knowing 
that there are existing, current Federal laws which will remain on the 
books and fully available to our law enforcement agencies and our 
Federal prosecutors, laws and adequate safeguards to protect us against 
acts of terrorism.
  I would draw attention, for example, Mr. Chairman, to section 
212(a)(3)(b) of our Immigration Act, which clearly defines and gives 
the Government full and plenary power to exclude and deport not only 
terrorists but terrorist organizations. I would also draw attention, 
Mr. Chairman, to the provision in my amendment which would seek to 
delete section 601 of this bill that relates to special, read that 
secret proceedings to exclude or deport aliens with provable terrorist 
connections.
  If the Barr amendment is adopted, Mr. Chairman, on this particular 
point, as one example of the balance in my amendment, we will be doing 
nothing, absolutely nothing to weaken the very strong tools that our 
Government currently has under the Immigration Act, for one example, to 
exclude and deport terrorists or terrorist organizations.
  My amendment, with regard specifically to section 601, would simply 
say we must do so openly, in the light of day, without having the 
entire proceedings not only secret but so secret that the defendant 
himself or herself is not even made aware of the evidence against them 
other than in at best a summary form, with that summary provided by the 
Government.
  I would also want to ensure that my colleagues know that again, for 
example, with regard to my proposed deletion of section 601, that the 
provisions of the Classified Information Protection Act or CIPA remain 
fully available to the Government. If my amendment is adopted, it does 
not weaken the ability of our Government to protect against disclosure 
of classified, important national security information in whatever 
proceeding, including exclusion or deportation proceedings.
  I would also like, Mr. Chairman, to focus on many of the limitations 
that the chairman and others who support this legislation have very 
properly crafted into the bill, that provide a very real and very 
substantial limit on expansion and abuse of Federal authority, and we 
all know that from time to time that does in fact occur.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, with regard to title I of this bill, there 
is protection afforded to all Federal employees and former Federal 
employees against somebody seeking to kill them because of their 
Federal employment. This corrects, I think, Mr. Chairman, an imbalance 
in the current laws of our country that would afford that protection 
only to certain covered, explicitly listed in our statute, categories 
of Federal employees.
  I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that if a person who works for our 
Social Security Administration goes to work, that he or she should do 
so knowing that they are any less valuable to our country and should 
receive any less protection than somebody that works across the hall 
from them, that may work for the U.S. attorney's office instead of for 
the Social Security Administration.
  This bill properly protects against abuses of Federal authority in 
these areas. It is not a vast expansion of Federal authority. For 
example, further, Mr. Chairman, with regard to title I, the bill does 
prohibit material support to terrorist organizations. It is clearly 
limited to those who provide material, demonstrable, substantive 
support to terrorist organizations, not any organization but terrorist 
organizations.
  Further with regard to title I, it is important to recognize the very 
strict limitations included in H.R. 2703. For example, with regard to 
acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, there are several 
explicit limiting provisions in this legislation. The underlying 
predicate with provides for the basic Federal jurisdiction, in the 
first place, it must cross national boundaries. There must be one of 
several additional jurisdictional bases before the Federal Government 
can become involved.
  Third, the Attorney General must certify explicitly in writing that 
the proposed case which it seeks to prosecute is also a Federal crime 
of terrorism that explicitly, and I repeat explicitly, requires that 
the crime be designed to influence or to affect U.S. Government 
policies or conduct. It must relate, then, to a series of explicitly 
laid out provisions in our current criminal code.
  For those Members, Mr. Chairman, who are very properly fearful of 
abuse of Government power, which does occur from time to time, and are 
hesitant to grant ever-increasing powers to the Government without a 
firm constitutional and practical basis for doing so, I say to them 
that those provisions in title I are replete with provisions that 
explicitly limit the reach of the Federal Government only to those 
instances of criminal behavior directly affecting our Federal public 
institutions and personnel.
  Returning, Mr. Chairman, to my proposed amendment and its constituent 
parts, I believe it does correct some remaining imbalances in H.R. 2703 
on which the chairman and his staff and I and my staff and dozens of 
other individuals have worked mightily for the better half of a year on 
this. For example, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions in this bill 
currently which I would seek to delete, which do not affect the 
underlying important substance of the bill but which would avoid 
potential problems in the future.
  If the Government, for example, Mr. Chairman, is going to prosecute 
someone who sells a firearm to somebody who then later uses it in the 
commission of a crime, I do not believe it is unreasonable to require 
the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person that 
sold that firearm knew that it was going to be subsequently used in the 
commission of a crime.
  Changing and lowering that burden substantially, Mr. Chairman, as the 
current provisions of H.R. 2703 would do, to the person having 
reasonable cause to believe, for example, that the

[[Page H2168]]

firearm might be used in a future crime, is too vague. It is 
unnecessary. The Government can currently reach the person that sells a 
firearm with reasonable knowledge that it will be used in the 
commission of a crime.
  A further provision explicitly dealt with, Mr. Chairman, in my 
omnibus amendment addresses section 305, the so-called Mack truck 
provision. I call this a Mack truck provision, Mr. Chairman, because it 
is so broad, in looking back over it, that one could drive a Mack truck 
through it.

                              {time}  1400

  This is the so-called good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule 
for wiretap evidence. In layman's terms, Mr. Chairman, this provision 
would allow the Government to use whatever it overhears in any 
electronic surveillance activity, whether related to a crime of 
terrorism or any other crime or other behavior which the Government 
seeks to stop, even if that evidence was acquired illegally, as long as 
the Government can go into court and show that it believed or its 
agents believed that they were operating in good faith.
  Mr. Chairman, in title 18, there are very extensive steps which the 
Government must take in each and every instance in which it seeks to 
surveil one of our citizens or anybody else electronically in this 
country. As a former United States attorney, Mr. Chairman, I had to be 
involved in that process on numerous occasions. It is a very powerful 
law enforcement tool. But by the same token, Mr. Chairman, those 
safeguards built into the current title 18 of our code which restrict 
the ability of our Government to engage in electronic surveillance are 
very proper because of the very invasive nature, inherent nature of 
electronic surveillance.
  I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should in any way at this 
time be granting such very broad exception authority to the Government 
as the current section 305 would do. H.R. 2703 also, Mr. Chairman, 
would require a study of so-called armor-piercing ammunition. My 
proposed amendment improves on that requirement. It improves on that 
requirement, Mr. Chairman, by requiring that the Secretary of the 
Treasury, in carrying out this important study to protect the lives of 
our police officers, is conducted in a comprehensive way and in a 
comprehensive context, studying not only the effects, the availability 
of armor-piercing ammunition, which, I would hasten to add, is 
currently illegal under U.S. law. My proposed amendment, which changes 
and expands the nature of that study, does nothing as does H.R. 2703 
currently does nothing to amend or weaken or delete the provisions 
currently in Federal law in title 18, section 922, that make the 
importation or sale of armor-piercing ammunition illegal in this 
country.
  This provision, though simple, Mr. Chairman, in my proposed amendment 
will strengthen that study that is required currently by H.R. 2703. 
With regard, Mr. Chairman, to what I consider the linchpin of this 
legislation, and that is habeas corpus reform, it is important to 
recognize that the proposed amendments in H.R. 2703 to our Federal 
habeas corpus laws strike a very appropriate balance between Federal 
and States' rights that is not currently in place. The reforms 
contemplated by H.R. 2703 will stop the endless, pointless, and abusive 
delays currently available to those in our State court system to avoid 
the carrying out of a death sentence.
  I was dismayed, though not surprised, to read, Mr. Chairman, that 
recently in my home State of Georgia a new trial had just been granted 
to an inmate in a State institution in Georgia who had committed murder 
and who had been sentenced to death. Not 2 years before, not 5, not 20, 
but 23 years before, and had just been granted a new trial.
  The reforms of our habeas corpus laws in this bill strengthen us and 
get us back to what our habeas corpus laws were intended to be, and 
that is a true safety valve for serious abuse by either a Federal or a 
State court judge. They bring a better balance, because under this bill 
no longer would a Federal judge be able to arbitrarily take in any 
habeas corpus case that he or she wants for whatever reason they want. 
Rather, they would have to, under H.R. 2703, they would have to show 
that there is an articulable and reasonable basis for bringing that 
case into the Federal system. It is a true safety valve. Yet it would 
not be one that could continue to be abused as the current provisions 
allow.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the provisions in H.R. 2703 that relate to 
reform of our Federal habeas corpus laws would place reasonable time 
limits on the use of the Federal habeas corpus provision. There have to 
be reasonable limits. There has to be a reasonable balance, else it 
will be an unreasonable system and wreak havoc on the American people, 
as we have seen in decade after decade.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting and important 
debate. Frankly, as the distinguished gentleman from Georgia said, we 
negotiated for 3 months trying to get a bill in proper shape that would 
be acceptable to people of different points of view in this matter. We 
took out emergency wiretap provisions, to my regret. We took out roving 
wiretap provisions, to my regret. We took out use of the military to 
protect against the use of chemical warfare, say, in mass 
transportation, to my regret. We took out funding provisions for that 
domestic counterterrorism center, which the intelligence agencies and 
the FBI wanted, to my regret.
  We have no way to pay for digital telephony, which will permit our 
law enforcement to wiretap fiber optics, which is the wave of the 
future, to my regret. But, we bent over backwards to accommodate the 
distinguished gentleman because we wanted his support. Evidently, we 
did not bend over far enough, because now we have several other 
objections to our bill that he seeks to strike.
  First of all, let me make clear I resist with whatever strength I can 
muster the gentleman's amendment without in any way diminishing my 
profound respect for his sincerity and for his scholarship.
  But, for example, he strikes section 301 of the bill relating to pen 
registers and trap and trace devices for foreign counterintelligence 
investigations. We are talking about counterespionage cases where one 
is suspected of being a spy for a foreign government. Pen registers 
record the telephone numbers called from a telephone; trap and trace 
devices record the telephone numbers calling into a telephone. The law 
requires that a court order must be obtained before these devices can 
be installed, and it does not seem to me too big a stretch for our law 
enforcement to learn who is calling whom in an appropriate criminal 
investigation after a court order.
  This is especially vital in espionage cases because of the 
necessarily secretive nature of the contacts between a spy and a 
foreign government agent. There is no fourth amendment protection for 
one's telephone number. But, in striking this from the bill, we seem to 
imply one.
  Strike section 305, this is serious. This provides in the bill a 
good-faith exception to the statutory exclusionary rule for wiretap 
evidence. In other words, if you get a court order, a warrant to 
wiretap, and there is a defect, a technical defect, but it was made in 
good faith as determined by a judge, you still have a suppression of 
that evidence, because it did not comply with the fourth amendment.
  Well, I hate to remind our people, but this Contract With America, 
which was signed by myself and the gentleman from Georgia and others, 
specifically provides, on page 62, for a good-faith exception to the 
exclusionary rule. The contract says too many guilty go free because of 
simple technical errors committed by officers who believed they were 
conducting proper investigations.
  May I say, the gentleman from Georgia was a leading defender of the 
good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule on February 7, 1995. I 
have his remarks here, and they do make stirring reading, and I commend 
them to my colleagues. But that is out, under the gentleman's 
amendment, somewhat to my surprise.
  Another part of the bill that the gentleman from Georgia strikes is 
section

[[Page H2169]]

601, the alien terrorist removal provisions. I vehemently oppose effort 
to strip these provisions from the bill. These were thoroughly 
discussed, debated in committee, and the bill will be incomplete 
without these alien terrorist removal provisions. They do not deny due 
process rights to aliens. An alien will not find himself in these 
proceedings unless a Federal district court judge finds that there is 
probable cause to believe that the alien is a terrorist and that the 
use of normal deportation proceedings would pose a risk to the national 
security of the United States.
  The alien in entitled to court-appointed counsel at these special 
hearings, which will be open to the public. The alien gets extensive 
rights to confront and cross-examination witnesses and examine any 
nonclassified information.
  Now, when you get to classified information, it may be used as 
evidence in the deportation proceedings, but only if the alien is given 
an adequate summary of the classified information that will enable him 
to defend the allegations.
  Legal permanent resident aliens will be given an attorney at 
Government expense who can challenge the classified information if no 
summary can be provided. The only circumstance in which classified 
information can be used without providing a summary to the alien is if 
the judge finds that providing the summary would cause serious and 
irreparable harm to the national security of the United States or 
serious bodily injury to any person, and the continued presence of the 
alien in the United States would pose the same risks.

  The Government's burden of proof, as in regular deportation 
proceedings, is to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the 
alien is a terrorist.
  Now, please hear me, the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have 
upheld the authority of the Immigration Service to use classified 
information in the cases of aliens who seek discretionary relief from 
deportation without disclosing such information to the applicant.
  I have got all the citations here. The sixth-amendment protection of 
our confrontation rights has no application in deportation proceedings, 
because they are purely civil matters. They are not criminal. Striking 
these provisions, as the gentleman does, would lead to alien terrorists 
being allowed to remain in the United States, to harm our citizens and 
lawful residents.
  Now, the next thing I object to is his striking of section 611. 
Section 611 bars entry of representatives and members of designated 
terrorist organizations and the process by which those foreign groups 
are designated as terrorists. By passing the Barr amendment, you remove 
from the bill the process by which groups are designated terrorists. 
These are not done arbitrarily with the Attorney General, who provides 
the factual evidence to Congress, and judicial review is provided to 
the group or the individual.
  I do not know how much more protection you can have to protect us 
from alien terrorists, who really have no right to come in this 
country, anyway. In any event, that is barred, and the process by which 
these groups are designated as terrorists. And, so, with Hamas, 
Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, there is no way to designate them as 
terrorist organizations.
  We can designate a terrorist country under another law, thank God. 
They have not found that yet or they would take that away.
  But here they are not going to let you designate terrorist 
organizations. Your Washington Post today, on page A18, says Hamas is 
raising money in the United States today. Are you comfortable with 
that? I am not.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I will yield to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SCHUMER. Is the gentleman saying that under the Barr amendment, 
Hamas would continue to be perfectly allowed to raise money here in 
America, members of Hamas would be allowed to come to America? Is that 
correct?
  Mr. HYDE. That is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, that is amazing. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HYDE. Last, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman strikes the reasonable-
cause-to-believe language in section 102 relating to knowingly 
providing material support to terrorist organizations, and section 204 
relating to knowingly transferring a firearm to another, knowing or 
having reasonable cause to believe it will be used in a crime of 
violence or drug trafficking offense.
  The key here is knowingly or having reasonable cause to believe. Now, 
what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] objects to is reasonable 
cause to believe, thinking that is too amorphous a standard. I just 
submit that it is the law in all other places in the code. I suggest 18 
USC section 922(f)1 and (i), for instance. So this is nothing new or 
strange.
  I just submit it will be unfortunate if the Barr amendment passes, 
because we eviscerate the bill. It still has some good in it, but it is 
a frail representation of what started out as a robust answer to the 
terrorist menace.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the comments made by my distinguished 
colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I would want 
our Members to understand that in deleting section 301 of this bill as 
my amendment would do, we are not in any way preventing, prohibiting, 
or weakening the government of our country from seeking information by 
court order against any person, whether they are foreign or domestic, 
terrorist or somebody that simply violates one of the other provisions 
of our criminal laws. We are not weakening that capability which our 
Government now has.
  With regard to my distinguished chairman's reference to the good-
faith exception, oh, how I wish it were as limiting as he would have us 
believe. It does not simply say, if wiretap evidence is sought to be 
introduced into evidence and yet is excludable because of a technical 
defect in the wiretap documentation, that it can be admitted.
  It is not so limiting. It applies to any evidence whatsoever, in 
whatever type of case whatsoever, that is obtained by our Government 
pursuant to electronic surveillance, gathered in violation of those 
provisions of our law that set limits on the admission and the 
gathering of electronic surveillance, so long as the Government agents 
can come into court with a straight face and say we did it in good 
faith.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major 
concerns among the groups called the conservative action team in the 
House. I just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues 
what the gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand 
it. This is going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way 
beyond where it is right now.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So any citizen of the United States might be 
subject to this good-faith exception which would allow the Government 
to find something out about them inadvertently through a wiretap that 
could cause them unbelievable problems.
  Mr. BARR. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I think my colleagues ought to think long and 
hard about that. One of the things we are concerned about is expanding 
the Government's ability to spy on or to find out everything about any 
individual in this country. Expanding this wiretap provision, I think, 
is something that is very, very disconcerting to me and many of my 
colleagues.
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for his insightful comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also direct my learned colleagues who oppose 
this very limiting and responsible and reasonable amendment that I am 
proposing to our Immigration and Nationality Act laws. There could be 
no broader definition of terrorist activity or terrorist organization 
or of the activities in this country in which those people would want 
to engage, such as raising money for a terrorist organization, than is 
currently found in our Federal laws. We have the protection currently. 
We have the capability currently to deal with these problems.

[[Page H2170]]

  What I have a great concern with are those provisions in H.R. 2703 
that would give this President or any President and his or her 
Secretary of State unilateral plenary authority to declared some group 
they do not like a terrorist organization.
  Our current laws, which we are not seeking to amend, provide the 
necessary safeguards and capability for our Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], the cosponsor of the Conyers-
Nadler substitute.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for his diligence and some of the provisions in 
his amendment, many of which I would point out are not copied, but 
included in identical form in the Conyers-Nadler-Berman amendment.
  We agree, I certainly agree, and I commend the gentleman for his 
provision, that would remove section 301, granting the FBI new 
authority on pen registers and trap and trace devices. We agree with 
and I commend the gentleman on his section disallowing the provision in 
the bill to allow wiretapping evidence obtained in good faith against 
defendants, as the gentleman points out, the Mack truck provision, 
without any court order. It is a terrible violation of civil liberties 
and a very dangerous expansion of Government power. Again, we do this 
in the substitute that will be considered later.
  There are a number of others. We agree with the gentleman and include 
in our bill the deletion of section 112 and modification of section 
304.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendment, though I agree with a 
lot of what it does. As I said, much of what it does is included in the 
substitute we will be offering later, because, to quote the 
Congressional Quarterly's Washington Alert of yesterday, it says that 
this amendment would dump most of the provisions aimed specifically at 
terrorist activities and would turn the package into a simple anticrime 
bill.
  There is nothing wrong with an anticrime bill, but we are supposed to 
be dealing here with an antiterrorism bill.
  Now, I understand the concern and why the gentleman wants to delete 
the provision allowing the Secretary of State to brand any organization 
as a terrorist organization and put it out of business. We agree with 
the gentleman's concern. But we cannot go so far as to delete it. What 
we have done in our substitute we will consider later is to subject 
that to a meaningful judicial review, to rein in that power. But 
without that, we have no prohibition that can be enforced against the 
funding from the United States of terrorist organizations.
  Likewise, the gentleman's deletion of the provision in I think 
section 601 permitting use of secret evidence against criminal aliens, 
whom we want to deport, I call that the Star Chamber court provision, 
to reinstate the court of Star Chamber that our ancestors rebelled 
against in this country. I agree that this provision is 
unconstitutional and is overbroad and is very destructive of civil 
liberties, but we in our amendment modify it. We provide basic due 
process protections. Again, without that we could not deport criminal 
aliens, not aliens, but alien terrorists in many situations.
  So I commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] and commend many 
of the provisions of his amendment, which, as I said, we duplicated in 
our amendment, but, unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment, 
because it removes the anti-terrorist provisions which should be 
modified but not removed.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reasonable men differ on issues 
reasonably, and I agree with the gentleman from Georgia that we need 
balance in this area. But I do not think he is striking the balance, 
and I must oppose strenuously this amendment, because I frankly think 
it guts this terrorism bill. If we enact the provisions that he is 
asking us to enact to strike from this bill those things he wants to 
strike in toto, the sum of that would be highly irresponsible.
  I particularly am concerned with a provision just mentioned, the 
exclusion of the denial of asylum for alien terrorists. The ability of 
the Secretary of State to name foreign organizations in the Federal 
registry as terrorist organizations is absolutely essential. Somebody 
has got to do that.
  We very strictly confine in this legislation who does it. But, by 
golly, we have to identify who they are and what the foreign terrorist 
organizations are, and then kick those people out and do not let them 
come in.
  We are talking now about asylum seekers. We do not want people to 
come into our airports in New York and Miami and San Francisco and have 
the opportunity when they set foot in this country to claim political 
asylum, ``hey, I will be persecuted if I am sent home,'' and use that 
as a cover to stay here, as we have had terrorists already do involving 
the World Trade Center and other activities in this country. We cannot 
afford to allow that to happen. If you take away the naming of the 
terrorist organizations, as he does, and do not allow them to be 
identified and then have the power in this law to exclude them when 
they come into those airports and deny them asylum, you have taken away 
an incredibly important tool we are going to all rue to fight 
terrorism.
  The next time we have some major foreign organization, a state from 
Libya, Iran, Iraq, or Hamas or whoever come over, bomb a building, kill 
a lot of people, we are going to be the ones to blame for it, not 
somebody else.
  Some of the things in the Barr amendment we can differ on, we can say 
we agree with or fudge around the corners. But the gentleman does not 
allow us to break it apart. It is a total package. you either take it 
or leave it, and we must leave it. In the strongest possible terms I 
urge the defeat of the Barr amendment. It is irresponsible.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if we knew that 
government was perfect and it was all goodness and light, we might not 
need this amendment. We know from the Travelgate revelations that 
justice is not always blind. In fact, it is not even always just when 
administered by individuals. We know that the government will mess up a 
one car funeral, and, when dealing with our civil rights, that is a 
mistake we do not want to make.
  I support the Barr amendment because it would protect innocent 
firearm vendors who could be held liable for failure to know they are 
lending support to those who may commit crimes.
  The amendment corrects privacy concerns by eliminating the right of 
law enforcement officers to access certain consumer, hotel, telephone, 
and employer records in order to conduct a criminal investigation. Most 
importantly, the Barr amendment corrects the overreaching language in 
title III which would allow for good faith exceptions to the 
exclusionary rule for permitting evidence obtained by wiretaps. I have 
serious concerns about giving law enforcement officers even more power 
to use wiretapped evidence, and therefore I support the Barr amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Barr 
amendment. There are great sections of this terrorism bill, effective 
death penalty reform, victims restitution, criminal alien deportation, 
that are great. That is fighting crime. But what does it do 
substantively for the cops?
  This is not a cops bill. What the gentleman's amendment does is it 
guts the bill. As stated in section 112 of the overall bill, 112 states 
that the National Institute of Justice shall test every single 
commercial bullet in this country against every single piece of 
protective armor that the policemen carry, that they can buy 
commercially.
  Have you ever ridden downtown at midnight? Were you ever scared? Cops 
handle 911 calls. They cannot turn

[[Page H2171]]

them down. They have to go to a 911 call. When people are running out 
of banks, the cops have to run into banks, and they have to feel secure 
that their protective armor is good and contains integrity.
  I say that we need to deal with the cops. This is not a cops bill. We 
need to retain section 112, which is a cops bill. I say let us leave 
politics out of this.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer], former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank very much the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], 
I consider myself a strong friend of law enforcement. I consider this 
amendment, the Barr amendment, to be the most anti-law enforcement 
amendment that we will see in this entire bill.
  Mr. Chairman, if we ask police officers, if we ask FBI agents, about 
the Barr bill, they will be amazed that anyone who considers themselves 
pro-law enforcement would vote for this, and let me make one thing 
perfectly clear:
  Under the Barr amendment, Hamas will be allowed to continue to raise 
funds here, and an individual can write on their passport that they are 
part of Hamas, and the State Department cannot prevent them from coming 
here.
  I would ask my good friend from Georgia, does he remember the sheik, 
a man who came in, who was part of a terrorist organization, and blew 
up the World Trade Center and killed innocent people? Under the Barr 
amendment the sheik could say I am part of a terrorist organization and 
walk right into America, and then he could raise money and send it back 
home to be used for blowing up innocent people.
  This amendment is a travesty. If this amendment passes, and I have 
put my guts into this bill, I have taken a good amount of flack from 
people on my side. But I cannot vote for this bill with the Barr 
amendment because it will become a total sham. It will not be an 
antiterrorism bill, it will not be a pro-law enforcement bill. It will 
just be a shred of something that is left.
  And do my colleagues know what? If we in this body dare vote for this 
amendment and then vote for the bill, we will understand why the 
American people think we are hypocrites. Because we cannot say we are 
passing an antiterrorism bill, and then put nothing in it, and take out 
every provision because of some hypothetical. What are we thinking of 
here? People's lives are at risk. We have had people die of terrorism. 
It was not even thought about that on these sacred shores terrorists 
could kill our citizens, and now we have seen several events where 
people are dead.
  The bill that the gentleman from Illinois has put together is a 
carefully crafted measure. There are those on both the far right and 
the far left who oppose it; I know that. But this amendment, this 
amendment, just eviscerates that bill.
  I will not support an amendment that panders to either side. I will 
not support an amendment that says it is fighting terrorism and does 
nothing to stop a Hamas or any other terrorist organization from 
raising money here in America. I will not support an amendment that 
makes fighting terrorism, something we should all care about, a sham. I 
strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me. Let me just say that I want to vote for this 
bill, but I cannot vote for it without the Barr amendment in it, and I 
want to tell my colleagues why.
  If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, 
good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our 
constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not 
tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain 
access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a 
court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our 
constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal 
with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional 
rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. 
And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if 
we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism 
crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the 
Revolutionary War.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure where the gentleman whose amendment 
this is is coming from because of his very strong prosecutorial and law 
enforcement background, and it leaves me confused that his amendment 
does not stop the FBI from intercepting stored e-mail and electric 
funds transferred information, although he does prevent the FBI from 
obtaining information from 10 registers which record the numbers dialed 
on a telephone. Was there some law enforcement reason that the 
gentleman drafted his amendment in that way?
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman if he chooses to make a 
response about it.
  Mr. BARR. I will address those and other issues on my time. I have 
learned early on that it is not best to do it on somebody else's.
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman does not have much time left. My 
colleague, I am being super-generous this afternoon.
  Mr. BARR. I appreciate the gentleman's generosity.
  Mr. CONYERS. Does the gentleman know what I think? I think I can come 
to my own conclusion, then, with the gentleman declining to explain 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I have two conclusions. One, he intended to do it this 
way; and, two, it was sloppy draftsmanship. Who knows? But we have got 
a problem, I would say to the gentleman, and it has been delineated 
very carefully in the discussion so far. Five minutes from now the 
gentleman will never have a chance to explain anything about this 
before 435 people vote on it. It is a very important subject matter. 
Some people are saying that whether this amendment succeeds or fails 
will determine the fate of the antiterrorist bill in the House of 
Representatives.
  We have a lot of things floating around here, and I just think that 
the gentleman might want to make us at least understand what he is 
doing. He is a respected person, a former leader in the Department of 
Justice. What in the world is going on here? Does the gentleman know 
that he would allow the Islamic Jihad to come into the United States 
and not be denominated a terrorist organization in his bill?
  May I get the gentleman's attention? If the gentleman does not want 
to talk to me, he does not have to, but does the gentleman know that? 
That is a fact.
  Mr. BARR. Do I know what?
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, if the gentleman would listen to me, I will repeat 
it again so the gentleman can respond to me.
  Does he know that the Islamic Jihad would be not denominated a 
terrorist organization under his provision? Does he understand that?
  Mr. BARR. If the gentleman would yield, I know that current law would 
so designate it; yes, I know that. Current law would designate Hamas.
  Mr. CONYERS. And is that why the gentleman left it out of the bill, 
of his amendment?
  Mr. BARR. It is under current law.
  Mr. CONYERS. Is the gentleman suggesting that the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary does not understand that, that the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Crimes does not understand, that all the members 
on the Committee on the Judiciary do not understand what the gentleman 
alone understands? Of course we have got to denominate that. We have 
got to denominate them as terrorists. That is why we are having--I am 
not yielding anymore, I am not yielding anymore.
  That is why we are here today, I would say to the gentleman, 
legislating an antiterrorist bill, not a criminal law bill, but an 
antiterrorist bill. And for the gentleman to hold up an orange book and 
tell me that it is already in the law, I think I understand what I am 
going to do with the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

[[Page H2172]]

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. 
I, too, want to support this bill, but I think that there is a balance 
that has been drafted very carefully by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr] to balance what we need to do and, at the same time, protect 
individual rights and liberties.
  Terrorism in this country obviously poses a serious threat to us as a 
free society. It generates fear. But there is a far greater fear that 
is present in this country, and that is fear of our own Government. We 
should not further that fear. We should not do anything to promote 
further lack of confidence in our own Government. Public officials must 
recognize that our citizens fear not only terrorism, but our Government 
as well.
  A recent Gallup Poll found that an astounding 52 percent of the 
people believe the Federal Government has become so large and powerful 
that it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. 
Four out of ten thought that this danger was imminent. We can ill 
afford to pass legislation in the name of antiterrorism that is seen by 
many law-abiding citizens of this country as a threat to their 
freedoms.
  The Barr amendment deletes provisions of the bill that I feel are 
essential to protect individual rights. I believe this bill violates 
constitutional rights without the Barr amendment, and it takes away 
personal liberties which are so precious, and we should not sacrifice 
them for any cause.
  For that reason I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the 
amendment. The Barr amendment protects our precious individual liberty.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much; I thank him for his leadership. I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for his leadership as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important issue. It is against a backdrop of 
an incident that none of us in our lifetime would have imagined, the 
tragedy in Oklahoma City. So we are facing this issue, trying to emerge 
into unison around ensuring the safety of Americans on our shores 
without having experienced a long history of dealing with the terrorism 
of Oklahoma City. We have, of course, seen the tragedy of Pan Am 103 
and the Korean Air Flight 007. With that in mind, then, we must strike 
a very fine balance.
  And the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman], Chief of 
Police, please let me agree with him. I stand in opposition to the Barr 
amendment because we have got to be focused and strong on terrorism, 
and terrorism includes our law enforcement officers who day after day 
after day are confronted by surprises in the community. We have in this 
bill an appropriate response to cop killer bullets. That is to ensure 
that we look at the ammunition to determine whether they kill and 
whether, in fact, they provide a terrorist atmosphere for our law 
enforcement.
  What does the Barr amendment do? It simply provides a study to see if 
we have killed any cops. Would not my colleagues say that we did not 
want Oklahoma City to happen? If we have an opportunity today on the 
House floor to prevent terrorist activities against our law enforcement 
officers in communities like St. Louis, MO, or Houston, TX, Detroit, 
MI, Atlanta, GA, is not it our responsibility to, in fact, go in front 
of it and avoid cop killer bullets from getting on the street?
  What about terrorist fund-raising activities? We have just seen the 
United Way stopped from fundraising if they do a little lobbying to 
increase more dollars to help kids in our neighborhoods and our 
communities. But yet we are going to allow, through the Barr amendment, 
the opportunity for individuals to fundraise and to encourage terrorist 
activities in this community, in this Nation, with taxpayer dollars. 
Our constituents' dollars, fundraising for terrorist activities; this 
is not a good approach to terrorism. Let us vote this amendment down.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barr amendment.
  In the wake of the World Trade Center bombing and Oklahoma City, it 
is unbelievable to me that we could be standing here today debating an 
amendment that would weaken the ability of law enforcement officials 
throughout the United States to protect us from this ever-growing 
menace in our country.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I had a recent conversation with the FBI Director. The 
FBI is recognized worldwide as the most effective law enforcement 
agency in the world. Their efforts in the World Trade Center bombing 
and the Oklahoma City bombing can stand as an example of effective law 
enforcement, but they need the tools to do that. My concern is that the 
Barr amendment limits those tools that they use.
  Mr. Chairman, let us have some faith in our judicial system and our 
law enforcement capabilities in this Chamber. If we pass the Barr 
amendment, the antiterrorism bill, as it is labeled, will not be worthy 
of the name. Let us reject this amendment and pass a good bill.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I am disappointed that 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] did not include in his amendment 
a provision to take the habeas corpus provisions out of this bill. But 
he did not do that. I have to evaluate his amendment on its merits.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say this to my colleagues. There is politics 
all over this place, on the right, on the left. But I want to tell my 
colleagues that the Constitution of the United States protects 
conservatives, protects liberals, protects moderates. The Constitution 
of the United States protects black people and white people and 
Mexican-Americans, and the whole range and array of people.
  To the extent that we undercut the provisions of the Constitution of 
the United States, we do our whole Nation a disservice. The gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is putting back in some sanity and some 
constitutional provisions. I think we ought to support his amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me ask my friend, the gentleman from North 
Carolina, who told us that we ought to remember how color-blind the 
Constitution is and that the provision of the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Barr] does something good, tell me, why is the gentleman 
supporting the Barr amendment, just for the record?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, 
I am supporting the Barr amendment because he restores the good faith 
exception under the fourth amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I take my time back. That is all the 
gentleman is getting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, not only for 
yielding time to me, but for his tremendous work as the chairman of the 
committee in drafting the antiterrorist bill, which I think is a very 
strong and needed piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barr amendment. I do not 
know if it weakens the bill or if it eviscerates it or guts it, as some 
of the other speakers have said, but there is no question it deletes it 
in some way or another.

[[Page H2173]]

  Mr. Chairman, we must try in this country to prevent every act of 
terrorism we can. We must do all that is legal to apprehend and convict 
perpetrators of such acts, to protect the American people. We must give 
law enforcement every tool possible. That is what this bill does. The 
amendment, for reasons stated by many speakers, and I do not have the 
time to enumerate them here, takes away some of the ability of law 
enforcement to enforce acts dealing with terrorism in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I look at the problems that have happened in Ireland 
and England, I look at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I know that the 
individuals who have committed these acts, terrorists, are 
international terrorists. We know they take airplanes, they have 
contacts in various places. We do not want them to come to our shores. 
We want them to know that we have the strongest possible law. So for 
that reason, Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation, the antiterrorist 
legislation, and hope we will all oppose the Barr amendment.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Barr amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to tell the Members that our original 
antiterrorism bill was terrorizing the good constituents of our 
district. I have had numerous calls from them. They were genuinely 
concerned, and I think rightfully so, about the possibility of 
infringing on their constitutional rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I hold here the primary reason I am supporting this 
amendment. That is because I believe that without this amendment, the 
original bill seriously threatens some very important constitutional 
rights. We have to have a proper balance here. If I am going to err, I 
am going to err on the side of supporting the Constitution. I took an 
oath to do that when I came here.
  I am going to vote for this amendment, and if it passes, and if my 
amendment which I will offer passes, I will vote for the bill. I did 
not think we could make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Our 
Congressman did that. I think him very much for his diligent efforts.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this, obviously, has been a very 
vigorous debate, as it should be, and hopefully will continue year 
after year after year, because these concerns that we are debating 
today are not going to be concluded in one piece of legislation.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important to realize that our 
Government already has at its beck and call vast powers with which to 
stop, investigate, prosecute, and sentence to lengthy prison times 
people who commit terrorist acts in this county.
  As the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] said previously, I am a 
former prosecutor, a U.S. attorney. I know from having prosecuted cases 
involving international figures that they do not come into this country 
frequently because they are afraid of our criminal justice system 
because of its strength because of its expanse, because of its ability 
to stop them, to put them away.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not need to grant our Government now vast new 
powers. They already have them. What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is to 
fine-tune what we already have to make it better. My amendment strikes 
that very delicate but absolutely essential balance with regard to 
accountability in Government, individual rights, and Government need to 
protect us.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on the left, on the right, 
in that vast middle, to recognize the balance that is struck through 
the Barr amendment. Vote for it, so we can tremendously strengthen this 
habeas-death penalty-crime prevention package so it protects all of our 
citizens without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is kind of a sad day for me, and I will 
tell the Members why. Earlier in the day, standing back there I heard a 
dear friend of mine, a great Republican, say ``I trust Hamas more than 
I trust my own government.'' Those words hurt. That is a very tragic 
situation, because our Government is made up of a lot of people, 
including me and you, a lot of good judges, honest judges with 
families.
  Yes, there are corrupt judges. There are corrupt clergy. So what? Our 
Government is run by people in a democracy, and ``I trust Hamas more 
than I trust my own Government''? I heard the distinguished gentleman 
from Oklahoma say almost the same thing, about how paralyzed with fear 
we are of our own Government. We should get rid of the bad apples.
  Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, asked my friend, 
the gentleman from Georgia, does this expand wiretapping; how 
intrusive. Well, it does not expand wiretapping. It provides for a good 
faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which the gentleman supported 
on February 7, 1995; which the gentleman supported when he signed the 
contract. What happened? Why has it suddenly become a terrible thing to 
have a good faith exclusion?
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell the Members what happened. The ACLU and the 
National Rifle Association, in a strange, bizarre marriage, the Jack 
Klugman and Tony Randall of national security policy, decided it was a 
bad idea, and people who supported it then, including the gentleman 
from Georgia, enthusiastically did 180 degrees.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not care. It is bad policy. We have a real threat. 
We either do something about it, or take a pass and pretend we are. 
With the Barr amendment, this is not an antiterrorism bill.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, I stood in opposition to 
the Barr amendment as I would on any amendment that compromises the 
health and safety of police officers. The Barr amendment strips this 
crime bill of necessary procedures to safeguard the lives of police 
officers.
  Effective and enforceable death penalty reform, victim restitution, 
expedited criminal alien deportation--these are great law enforcement 
tools. That is why I support H.R. 2703.
  But what about supporting our Nation's cops?
  The Barr amendment removes protection for our law enforcement 
officers and flies in the face of effective law enforcement.
  Have any of you ever run into a bank when everyone else is running 
out of it? I have.
  You need to remember a 911 call means you must respond. You have no 
choice. Are we satisfied that we are protecting the men and women who 
protect us?
  Cops protect all of us, gun enthusiasts as well as gun control 
advocates. This should not be a political issue.
  Let's stop the demagoguery and analyze the facts.
  Currently, there are no cop-killer bullets available on the market. 
In 1986 Congress banned specific types of cop-killer ammunition based 
on weight and composition. After the M39B bullet was manufactured in 
Sweden and imported into the United States, Congress expanded the 
definition of a cop-killer bullet to encompass all alloy coated 
ammunition which would pierce body armor. This was done in the 1994 
crime bill. Thus, Congress not only has the authority and 
responsibility to ban cop-killer bullets, it has shown a decisive 
willingness to do so in the past.
  The original section 112--the so-called cop killer bullet study does 
not grant the Attorney General unfettered discretion to ban broad types 
of ammunition--including some ammunition used solely for hunting. 
Rather, the National Institutes of Justice [NIJ] will develop a 
standard to be used to identify any future cop-killer bullets. I have 
utilized the NIJ's expertise during the 24 years I was the Raleigh 
chief of police. Under the provisions of H.R. 2703 NIJ can only develop 
the standard to identify cop-killer bullets, it does not have the power 
to arbitrarily ban ammunition.

  The Barr substitute does nothing for cops. At best the Barr 
substitute is smoke and mirrors. All of the issues supposedly to be 
studied in the Barr amendment have in fact already been studied. The 
FBI already has published the results in the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Killed and Assaulted 1994.''
  Over the last 10 years, 708 officers were killed in the line of duty 
with firearms. During 1994, 76 officers were killed in the line of 
duty.

[[Page H2174]]

Of those, 31 officers lost their lives during arrest situations. 
Firearms were used in 74 of the 75 slayings. Handguns were used in 63 
of those killings. Of 223 officers wearing body armor when slain during 
the past 10 years, 130 suffered gunshot wounds to the head, 61 suffered 
gunshot wounds to the upper torso, and 18 suffered gunshot wounds below 
the waist.
  The original section 112 study of H.R. 2703 was a win-win for cops. 
It directed NIJ to formulate standards for Congress to use to determine 
whether ammunition can pierce body armor and thus be designated cop-
killer. These standards do not currently exist. Using these standards, 
Congress would have been able to scientifically ban any future cop-
killer bullets. Development of these standards will prevent arbitrary 
exclusion of ammunition and allow Congress to intelligently address 
this life and death issue.
  I hope NIJ will formulate these standards unilaterally.

 Uniform Crime Reports--Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 
                                  1994


               section i: law enforcement officers killed

       During 1994, 76 law enforcement officers were killed in the 
     line of duty. Officers' deaths were recorded by law 
     enforcement agencies in 29 states, the District of Columbia, 
     and Puerto Rico. Of the victims, 45 were employed by city 
     police departments, 14 by county police and sheriffs' 
     offices, and 8 by state agencies. Three deaths were reported 
     by two federal agencies, and Puerto Rico reported 6 killings.
       The total was higher in 1994 than in 1993 when 70 officers 
     were slain. Comparisons for 5- and 10-year periods showed the 
     number of officers slain in 1994 was 15 percent higher than 
     in 1990, but 3 percent below the 1985 total.

                                Victims

       Of the 76 officers killed in 1994, 73 were males and 3 were 
     females. The average age of officers slain was 36, Six of the 
     victims were under the age of 25; 20 were between the ages of 
     25 and 30; 29 were aged 31 through 40; and 21 were over 40 
     years of age. Sixty-four of the slain officers were white, 11 
     were black, and one was Asian/Pacific Islander.
       The law enforcement officers killed in 1994 averaged 10 
     years of experience. Twenty-seven officers had over 10 years 
     of law enforcement service; 26 had 5 to 10 years of service; 
     and 15 had 1 to 4 years. Eight officers had less than 1 year 
     of law enforcement experience.

                    Circumstances surrounding deaths

       During 1994, 31 officers lost their lives during arrest 
     situations. A further breakdown of these situations showed 16 
     officers were killed by robbery suspects, 3 by suspects 
     during drug-related situations, 3 by burglary suspects, and 9 
     by assailants suspected of other crimes.
       Fifteen officers were slain investigating suspicious 
     persons or circumstances; 11 were killed while enforcing 
     traffic laws; 8 were killed while responding to disturbance 
     calls; 6 were ambushed; 4 were killed while dealing with 
     mentally deranged individuals; and 1 was killed while 
     handling or transporting a prisoner.

                          Types of assignment

       Patrol officers accounted for 50 of the 76 victims in 1994. 
     Of those officers killed while on patrol, 43 were assigned to 
     1-officer vehicles, 6 to 2-officer vehicles, and 1 was on 
     foot patrol. Fourteen victims were on detective or special 
     assignment, and 12 were off duty but acting in an official 
     capacity when slain.
       Figures for 1985 through 1994 also show that the largest 
     percentage of victim officers were assigned to vehicle patrol 
     when they were slain. Fifty-four percent of the vehicle 
     patrol officers were alone and unassisted at the time of 
     their deaths, while 31 percent of the victim officers on 
     other types of assignments were alone and unassisted.

                           Alleged assailants

       Seventy-one of 76 slayings of law enforcement officers in 
     1994 have been cleared. Of the 106 suspects identified in 
     connection with the murders, 102 were male, and 4 were 
     female. Fifty-six of the suspects were white, and 45 were 
     black. Sixty-eight of the 106 alleged assailants were under 
     the age of 30.
       Sixty-one of the suspects identified had previous arrests, 
     and 41 had a prior conviction. The records showed that 46 
     suspects had previous arrests for crimes of violence, 26 for 
     drug-related offenses, and 41 for weapons violations.
       Of the 106 persons identified, 75 have been arrested by law 
     enforcement agencies. Sixteen were justifiably killed (5 by 
     victim officers), 11 committed suicide subsequent to slaying 
     the officers, and 4 are fugitives. No suspects have been 
     identified in connection with six slayings.
       Dispositions of 973 persons identified in connection with 
     officers' murders during the decade, 1983-1992, 
     were reviewed. By moving the period back 2 years, the 
     number of pending cases was only 15. Of the 973 
     identified, 787 were arrested and charged; 129 were 
     justifiably killed; 1 was murdered in an unrelated 
     incident; 51 committed suicide; and 5 remain at large.
       Among those persons charged for whom final disposition is 
     known, 73 percent were found guilty of murder; 8 percent were 
     found guilty of a lesser offense related to murder; and 4 
     percent were found guilty of some crime other than murder. 
     Nine percent of the suspects were acquitted or had charges 
     against them dismissed, and 2 percent were committed to 
     psychiatric institutions. One percent of the persons charged 
     with the officers' murder died in custody before final 
     disposition was determined.
       Available data revealed that 112 of the 580 offenders found 
     guilty of murder were sentenced to death, 274 received life 
     imprisonment, and 190 were given prison terms ranging from 5 
     to 450 years. Two were placed on probation, and 2 were given 
     indeterminate sentences.

                                Weapons

       Firearms claimed the lives of 92 percent of the 708 
     officers killed in the line of duty from 1985 through 1994. 
     Seventy-three percent of the murders were committed by the 
     use of handguns, 13 percent by rifles, 6 percent by shotguns, 
     and 8 percent by other weapons.
       Eight-nine officers were slain with their own weapons 
     during the 10-year period. In the same time frame, 169 
     officers fired their service weapons, and the weapons of 122 
     officers were stolen.
       More than half of the officers killed by gunshot wounds 
     during this 10-year period were within 5 feet of their 
     assailants at the time of the attack. Forty-seven percent of 
     the firearm fatalities were caused by wounds to the head, 47 
     percent by upper torso wounds, and 6 percent by wounds below 
     the waist.
       During 1994, firearms were used in 75 of the 76 slayings. 
     Handguns were the murder weapons in 63 of the killings, 
     rifles in 8, and shotguns in 4. Six officers were shot with 
     their own service weapons.
       As in previous years, the most common handgun cartridge 
     types used against officers in 1994 were the .38 caliber, 
     .380 caliber, and 9 millimeter. These three weapons jointly 
     accounted for more than half of the handgun deaths.
       One officer in 1994 was intentionally struck with a 
     vehicle.

                               Body armor

       Of 223 officers wearing body armor when slain during the 
     past 10 years, 130 suffered gunshot wounds to the head, 61 
     suffered gunshot wounds to the upper torso, and 18 suffered 
     gunshot wounds below the waist. Of 61 officers killed by 
     upper torso wounds, 31 officers were killed when bullets 
     entered between the panels of the vests or through the arm 
     openings. Seventeen were killed by wounds above the vest 
     area, and 11 officers were slain when the bullets penetrated 
     their protective vests. Two officers were killed by the 
     wounds in the back area and/or lower abdominal area not 
     protected by their vest.
       Also wearing vests, 8 officers were intentionally struck by 
     vehicles, 3 officers were stabbed, 1 was beaten, 1 was struck 
     on the head with a bucket of spackling compound, and 1 pushed 
     to his death.
       See the following special report on body armor.

                                 Places

       The most populous region, the Southern States, reported 24 
     of the 76 officers' fatalities in 1994. The Western States 
     reported 18, and the Midwestern States reported 16 officers 
     slain. The Northeastern States reported 12, and Puerto Rico 
     reported 6.
       A comparison of regional totals for the two periods, 1985-
     1989 and 1990-1994, showed that the number of officers killed 
     during the latter 5-year span declined in all regions except 
     the Midwest.

                                 Times

       In the past 10 years, 63 percent of the incidents resulting 
     in officers' deaths occurred from 6:01 p.m. to 6 a.m. The 
     figures show the periods from 4:01-6 a.m. and 6:01-8 a.m. to 
     be the hours when the fewest officers are slain and the 2-
     hour period, 8:01-10 p.m., to be when the greatest number are 
     killed.
       Daily figures for the decade, 1985-1994, showed more 
     officers were slain on Fridays than on any other day of the 
     week; the least number of fatalities was recorded on Sundays. 
     A review of the monthly totals for the same years showed 
     January with the highest figure, 74.

                          Accidental killings

       Sixty-two officers lost their lives due to accidents 
     occurring while performing their official duties in 1994. 
     Fifty officers were killed in automobile, motorcycle, and 
     aircraft accidents; 7 were accidentally struck by vehicles; 2 
     were accidentally shot; and 3 were killed in other types of 
     accidents such as falls, drowning, etc.
       Regionally, the Southern States recorded 26 accidental 
     deaths; the Midwestern States, 13; the Western States, 12; 
     and the Northeastern States, 6. Five officers were 
     accidentally killed in Peru.

  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to 
lend my support to the Barr amendment. Without this important 
amendment, the bill, despite the good intentions behind it, is fatally 
flawed and should not be supported.
  We do not need another so-called antiterrorism provision to add to 
the ones that are already on the books. We do need the kind of death 
penalty reform that the Barr amendment would provide without the 
trampling of our civil liberties.
  The Barr amendment will give us the ability to enforce the death 
penalty and end the frivolous appeals that keep legitimate cases from 
being heard in a timely manner. But, the Barr amendment strips away the 
threat of big brother snooping into the private affairs of American 
citizens.
  In my view, it is important that we adopt the Barr provision so that 
private records about

[[Page H2175]]

consumer credit, public accommodation, and common carrier information 
do not become tools of the Federal Government without a search warrant.
  The amendment will also block Federal authorities from digging around 
in citizens' telephone billing records without a court order.
  Equally important, the Barr amendment will prevent the wrongful use 
of wiretaps by Government agents simply claiming a good faith exception 
to the exclusionary rule.
  Mr. Chairman, fear of terrorism is no excuse for infringing on the 
civil liberties of the American people.
  I think that the author of the base bill, while completely well-
intentioned in this effort, would be the first to admit that there is 
nothing in this bill that would have prevented the tragedy in Oklahoma.
  Terrorists act outside of the law. The Congressional Research Service 
has compiled a list of the current antiterrorism laws on the books that 
spans 17 pages. We do not need to add to that list.
  To the extent that a committed terrorist can be deterred by the law, 
I believe the knowledge that we have a swift and sure justice system 
would be a far better deterrent.
  That is why the death penalty reform portion of the bill is so 
important. Criminals need to know that if they are given the death 
penalty it will be enforced and the people need to know that their 
government will protect them from the predators of society.
  Stripped of the intrusive provisions, the underlying bill will 
provide us with much needed change in the criminal justice system.
  The bill will provide the mandatory victim restitution that so many 
of us have wanted for so long. It will make it easier to deport 
criminal aliens and of course it enhances the ability of the justice 
system to carry out the execution of violent criminals.
  These are all laudable provisions and I congratulate my dear friend 
from Illinois, Henry Hyde, for including these measures. We just need 
to make sure that we attach the Barr amendment so that we can keep the 
bill focused on punishing criminals rather than expending the power of 
big government.
  We should not indulge ourselves in legislation simply because it 
makes us feel good to pass something--so that we can go home and say 
that we passed a bill.
  If we are going to pass something, lets make sure that it is 
consistent with the constitutional freedoms that we Americans enjoy and 
guard so jealously.
  Without the Barr amendment, the bill before us may make us feel 
better; but, it will be just one more expansion of Federal power and 
one more restriction on the civil liberties of the people.
  As the late Justice Felix Frankfurter said, ``Personal freedom is 
best maintained * * * when it is ingrained in people's habits and not 
enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law.''
  I urge my colleagues to support the Barr amendment and the bill as 
amended.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, for the last few months, I have 
been in contact with hundreds of my constituents in Oklahoma City and 
throughout my district regarding this legislation that we are 
considering today.
  There is a consensus among Oklahomans that we critically need the 
habeus corpus provisions that are included in this bill to assure that 
criminals, including those who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing--
cannot abuse America's judicial system.
  However, there is great--and I believe ligitimate--concern and fear 
that other provisions in this bill attack fundamental constitutional 
liberties.
  The Barr amendment addresses these problems in a thorough and 
comprehensive way.
  The Barr amendment will delete the fatally flawed provision that 
would hold innocent firearms vendors criminally liable for failing to 
know that their customer was planning a felony.
  The Barr amendment will eliminate the wiretapping provision that 
would expand the use of wire communications as evidence in federal 
criminal prosecutions.
  The Barr amendment will delete the provision that authorizes the 
government to brand organizations as terrorist.
  The Barr amendment strips out those sections of the bill that 
undermine our civil liberties, and I know that many of my colleagues 
agree that without these deletions, we cannot support this legislation.
  I commend the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this 
issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the Barr amendment that 
underscores and protects the constitutional rights of our constituents. 
If the Barr amendment passes, we have clean legislation that will stop 
criminal abuses of our American justice system and merit our strong 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 171, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--246

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--171

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano

[[Page H2176]]


     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walker
     Ward
     Weldon (PA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Collins (IL)
     de la Garza
     Duncan
     Laughlin
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Rush
     Sisisky
     Stokes
     Waxman
     Wilson

                              {time}  1513

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Duncan for, with Mr. Waxman against.

  Mr. PACKARD and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. McHUGH, SAXTON, BATEMAN, FROST, BENTSEN, and COX of 
California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of section 101 of the 
bill before us dealing with the protection of Federal employees 
allowing for the Federal prosecution for murder, attempted murder of 
all officers and employees of the government while engaged in official 
duties, and I commend the chairman for taking up this measure and 
making it part of our bill.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleague, and an outstanding member of your 
committee and the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Chabot 
of Ohio, joined me earlier this year in introducing H.R. 2737. That 
particular bill was introduced after we learned of a death of a U.S. 
Customs inspector along the Mexican border at a drug hearing held last 
year.
  Along the Southwest border not long ago, a Customs Service inspector 
was run down and killed by a drug trafficking port runner. We were 
appalled to learn at the hearing that the prosecution was handled not 
by the U.S. Attorney's Office, but by the local prosecutor.
  This should not be the case. Those courageous and dedicated Federal 
officers such as Customs Service Inspectors, Agents, Canine Enforcement 
Officers, and other employees engaged in official duties protecting us 
from drug trafficking and other criminal elements, should be protected 
under Federal law, and we should not have to rely on local law and 
local prosecutors in such cases.
  Our Department of Justice must be fully empowered and be prepared to 
prosecute those who would murder or attempt to take the lives of all of 
the Customs Service personnel engaged in official duties. H.R. 2737 was 
introduced to insure that would be the case.
  I am informed that section 101 of the bill before us will fully cover 
and help provide full protection for all those Customs Service 
employees, and all other Federal employees in the future, under 
appropriate circumstances.
  I applaud the chairman's efforts to bring about that worthy goal, and 
I appreciate this opportunity to work together to solve a serious 
problem. I thank him for his time and leadership.


                 amendments en bloc offered by mr. hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the authority granted in the 
rule, I offer the following amendments en bloc. No. 3, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida; No, 8, Mr. Traficant, No. 11, Mr. Bachus and Mr. Spratt, and 
No. 14, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kasich.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Page 6, beginning in line 23, strike ``32'' and all that 
     follows through ``2332b'' in line 25 and insert ``32, 37, 81, 
     175, 351, 831, 842(m) or (n), 844(f) or (i), 956, 1114, 1116, 
     1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 
     2332, 2332a, 2332b, or 2340A''.
       Add at the end of title VII the following:

     SEC. 704. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that, whenever practicable 
     recipients of any sums authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act, should use the money to purchase American-made products.

                TITLE   -- INTERNATIONAL COUNTERFEITING

     SEC.  01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``International 
     Counterfeiting Prevention Act of 1996''.

     SEC.    02. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON INTERNATIONAL 
                   COUNTERFEITING OF UNITED STATES CURRENCY.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, and the Secretary of State shall establish, and 
     appoint the members of, an interagency task force (hereafter 
     in this title referred to as the ``task force'') to--
       (A) monitor the use and holding of United States currency 
     in foreign countries;
       (B) produce a statistically valid estimate of the amount of 
     counterfeit United States currency that is produced, passed, 
     and possessed outside the United States each year; and
       (C) coordinate the activities of the agencies represented 
     on the task force in carrying out the duties described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (2) Composition of task force.--The task force shall 
     consist of the following:
       (A) The Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, or 
     a designee of the Under Secretary.
       (B) The Director of the United States Secret Service, or a 
     designee of the Director.
       (C) The Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 
     or a designee of the Director.
       (D) Such other officers of the Department of the Treasury, 
     including any officer in any bureau, office, or service 
     within the department, as the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     determine to be appropriate, or any designee of any such 
     officer.
       (E) A member of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System as designated by the Chairman of such Board, 
     or a designee of such member.
       (F) The general counsel of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System, or a designee of the general counsel.
       (G) Such other officers of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System as the Chairman of such Board may 
     determine to be appropriate, or a designee of any such 
     officer.
       (H) Such officers of the Department of State as the 
     Secretary of State may determine to be appropriate, or a 
     designee of any such officer.
       (3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall serve 
     as the chairperson of the task force.
       (b) Evaluation Audit Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The task force shall establish an 
     effective international evaluation audit plan that is 
     designed to enable the agencies represented on the task force 
     to carry out the duties described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of subsection (a)(1) on a regular and thorough basis.
       (2) Submission of detailed written summary.--The task force 
     shall submit a detailed written summary of the evaluation 
     audit plan developed pursuant to paragraph (1) to the 
     Congress before the end of the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) 1st evaluation audit under plan.--The task force shall 
     begin the first evaluation audit pursuant to the evaluation 
     audit plan no later than the end of the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Subsequent evaluation audits.--At least 1 evaluation 
     audit shall be performed pursuant to the evaluation audit 
     plan during each 3-year period beginning after the date of 
     the commencement of the evaluation audit referred to in 
     paragraph (3).
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The task force shall submit a written 
     report to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on the results of 
     each evaluation audit conducted pursuant to subsection (b) 
     within 90 days after the completion of the evaluation audit.
       (2) Contents.--In addition to such other information as the 
     task force may determine to be appropriate, each report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following information:
       (A) A detailed description of the evaluation audit process 
     and the methods used to detect counterfeit currency.
       (B) The method used to determine the currency sample 
     examined in connection with the evaluation audit and an 
     analysis of the statistical significance of the sample 
     examined.
       (C) A list of the regions of the world, types of financial 
     institutions, and other entities included.
       (D) The total amount of United States currency and the 
     total quantity of each denomination found in each region of 
     the world.
       (E) The total amount of counterfeit United States currency 
     and the total quantity of each counterfeit denomination found 
     in each region of the world.
       (F) An analysis of the types of counterfeit currency 
     discovered and any recurring patterns of counterfeiting, 
     including currency that fits the family of counterfeit 
     currency designated by the United States Secret Service as 
     C--14342.
       (3) Classification of information.--
       (A) In general.--To the greatest extent possible, each 
     report submitted to the Congress under this subsection shall 
     be submitted in an unclassified form.
       (B) Classified and unclassified forms.--If, in the interest 
     of submitting a complete report under this subsection, the 
     task force determines that it is necessary to include 
     classified information in the report, the report shall be 
     submitted in a classified and an unclassified form.

[[Page H2177]]

       (d) Sunset Provision.--This section shall cease to be 
     effective as of the end of the 10-year period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC.  03. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SENTENCING PROVISIONS RELATING 
                   TO INTERNATIONAL COUNTERFEITING OF UNITED 
                   STATES CURRENCY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds the following:
       (1) United States currency is being counterfeited outside 
     the United States.
       (2) The 103d Congress enacted, with the approval of the 
     President on September 13, 1994, section 470 of title 18, 
     United States Code, making such activity a crime under the 
     laws of the United States.
       (3) The expeditious posting of agents of the United States 
     Secret Service to overseas posts, which is necessary for the 
     effective enforcement of section 470 and related criminal 
     provisions, has been delayed.
       (4) While section 470 of title 18, United States Code, 
     provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years as 
     opposed to a maximum term of 15 years for domestic 
     counterfeiting, the United States Sentencing Commission has 
     failed to provide, in its sentencing guidelines, for an 
     appropriate enhancement of punishment for defendants 
     convicted of counterfeiting United States currency outside 
     the United States.
       (b) Timely Consideration of Requests for Concurrence in 
     Creation of Overseas Posts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (A) consider in a timely manner the request by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for the placement of such number of 
     agents of the United States Secret Service as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury considers appropriate in posts in overseas 
     embassies; and
       (B) reach an agreement with the Secretary of the Treasury 
     on such posts as soon as possible and, in any event, not 
     later than December 31, 1996.
       (2) Cooperation of treasury required.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall promptly provide any information request by 
     the Secretary of State in connection with such requests.
       (3) Reports required.--The Secretary of the Treasury and 
     the Secretary of State shall each submit, by February 1, 
     1997, a written report to the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate explaining the reasons for the rejection, if any, of 
     any proposed post and the reasons for the failure, if any, to 
     fill any approved post by such date.
       (c) Enhanced Penalties for International Counterfeiting of 
     United States Currency.--Pursuant to the authority of the 
     United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of 
     title 28, United States Code, the Commission shall amend the 
     sentencing guidelines prescribed by the Commission to provide 
     an appropriate enhancement of the punishment for a defendant 
     convicted under section 470 of title 18 of such Code.
       Add at the end the following:

                TITLE  --BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS

     SEC. 001. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Biological Weapons Enhanced 
     Penalties Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 002. ATTEMPTS TO ACQUIRE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

       Section 175(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``attempts to acquire under false pretenses,'' 
     after ``acquires,''

     SEC. 003. INCLUSION OF RECOMBINANT MOLECULES.

       Section 175 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``recombinant molecules,'' after ``toxin,'' each 
     place it appears.

     SEC. 004. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 178 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or naturally occurring 
     or bioengineered component of any such mircroorganism, virus, 
     or infectious substance,'' after ``infectious substance'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``the toxic material of plants, animals, 
     microorganisms, viruses, fungi or infectious substances'' 
     after ``means''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and includes'' after ``production'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or a molecule, 
     including a recombinant molecule,'' after ``organism''.

     SEC. 005. THREATENING USE OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.

       Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``, threatens,'' after ``uses, or''.

     SEC. 006. INCLUSION OF RECOMBINANT MOLECULES AND BIOLOGICAL 
                   ORGANISMS IN DEFINITION.

       Section 2332a(b)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``disease organism'' and inserting 
     ``biological agent or toxin, as those terms are defined in 
     section 178''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will each control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan to 
proceed.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Congressmen 
Conyers and Nadler on crafting a true antiterrorism substitute which 
balances the fundamental rights of the American people with a firm 
stance against domestic and international terrorism.
  Unfortunately, the Hyde legislation before us today threatens 
personal liberties and constitutional rights. Once again, the 
Republicans have taken a great idea--combating terrorism--and turned it 
into a avalanche of extreme ideas. Why has this bill become bloated 
with controversial provisions? The answer is simple--leverage. It's 
time for this body to say enough is enough. The Republican leadership 
should have learned by now that the American people will not be 
blackmailed into accepting radical new laws from this Congress.
  The Hyde bill dramatically weakens the fourth amendment by allowing 
illegal search and seizures if they are conducted in so-called good 
faith. It also allows for a sweeping definition of terrorism by 
politically appointed officials without judicial review. Lastly, the 
bill places too many limits on the right to appeal a conviction under 
habeas corpus. I urge Members to vote for the Conyers/Nadler substitute 
which corrects some of these problems, while retaining the good 
sections of the underlying bill.
  Worthy of particular mention is the first section of the substitute--
and the Hyde bill--which expands the protections for Federal employees. 
Under the substitute, ``any officer or employee of the United States'' 
and any person assisting that employee in the performance of his 
official duties is protected from violent, threatening, or harmful 
actions.
  These simple protections are long overdue. Almost an entire year has 
passed since the Nation was jolted by the Oklahoma City bombing and the 
concept of domestic terrorism. Long before that tragic day, however, 
many of our Federal employees, especially in the western United States, 
have been putting their lives on the line in order to implement and 
enforce the laws of the land--the laws this Congress created. Although 
I have repeatedly requested that the chairman of the Resources 
Committee schedule hearings on this issue, my requests has been either 
ignored or deemed an inappropriate ``use of the committee's 
resources.''
  The hostile climate toward our Federal employees, often the result of 
an extreme faction of the citizenry that opposes the enforcement of 
land use laws, has been translated into threats or acts of physical 
violence with increasing frequency.
  Last January, a U.S. Forest Service office in Santa Fe, NM, was 
bombed. The blast resulted in structural damages to the building with 
repair costs estimated to rise as high as $25,000. No one was injured, 
this time.
  And last August, a bomb was detonated outside of the Nevada home of a 
U.S. Forest Ranger. His wife and daughter were home at the time of the 
incident and only escaped serious injury because of sheer luck.
  Unfortunately, these two incidents are neither as uncommon nor as 
isolated as the 5-month window between them may suggest. Throughout the 
past few years, other offices of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management have experienced bombings, Federal employees' and their 
families have received threats, employees have been physically 
     prevented from performing their duties, ranger stations 
     have been vandalized, unexploded pipe bombs have been 
     discovered on public lands, and, as a result, many 
     struggle with daily fear and social isolation.
  It is about time for Congress to beef up the legal protection of 
Federal employees. Those who carry out the laws of the land every day 
deserve nothing less.
  This substitute warns would-be violators in no uncertain terms that 
there will be serious consequences if you threaten or harm a Federal 
employee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are now in the portion of the bill where we are now combining four 
amendments that have been agreed to by the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary and myself. We support them, and I would like to allow at 
least one of the sponsors to be recognized, and I will shortly 
recognize the gentleman from Florida.
  But before I do that, I would like to clarify where we are in the 
proceedings on the antiterrorist bill. Because with the last vote cast, 
we have just eviscerated the heart and soul of the antiterrorist bill. 
Here we are, the House of Representatives, with the last vote cast on 
this bill, we have now eviscerated the antiterrorist bill that was 
brought by the Committee on the Judiciary. There are no new penalties. 
Terrorist organizations can now raise funds on our shores, inside of 
the United States. There are no new tools for Federal law enforcement 
agencies. And with the National Rifle Association, we have  just  put  
to  rest  the  parts  that 

[[Page H2178]]

I supported in the bill brought by the committee.
  We now have only the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute that will have 
any hope, if we really want to respond to the victims of Oklahoma, the 
other tragedies that have been recounted almost with Members with tears 
in their eyes, and now we have turned around and done this.
  I continue to move forward to better provisions of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, in that regard, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time. Also I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for offering initially to extend to me a 
small amount of time.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It makes it easier for our 
Government to prosecute those persons who provide material support 
knowing that the support will be used in acts commonly associated with 
terrorism. It is designed to buttress existing Federal law and to make 
those who knowingly support these crimes accountable.
  The crimes are enumerated, and in the interests of everyone's time, 
particularly the chairperson and the ranking member and any other 
Member who may wish to speak, I merely wish to add in spite of the 
matters that have gone before us, and I do agree with the ranking 
member that this matter now has been eviscerated, we must somehow or 
another get at the roots of terrorism by giving our law enforcement 
authorities the ability to prosecute those persons who, while they may 
not actually carry out the activities themselves, enable the terrorists 
to operate here in the United States as well as elsewhere.
  My amendment had hoped to be able to address that specific subject by 
expanding the enumerated crimes.

  I ask support for this version and the en bloc amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to get tough on terrorism. The amendment I 
am offering today will do just that. I am proposing a very simple, yet 
very important modification to title I of H.R. 2703.
  Title I provides criminal jurisdiction to the United States to 
investigate and prosecute certain terrorist offenses carried out by or 
against American citizens as well as terrorist offenses that are 
planned within the United States but carried out overseas.
  Section 103 of title I states that persons who provide material 
support ``knowing or intending'' that it be used for certain criminal 
acts will be subject to a fine or imprisonment. The section does not 
specify that a terrorist must be the one to knowingly provide material 
support; it states that anyone who knowingly provides material support 
for terrorist activity shall be punished.
  My amendment adds specific criminal violations to the list of crimes 
currently found in this section. This modification does not tread on 
civil liberties; it simply expands the list of crimes in the material 
support provision to cover other acts commonly associated with 
terrorism. These acts, from title 18, section 2339A, United States 
Code, include: Arson with special maritime-territorial jurisdiction; 
development, production, or transfer of biological-nuclear weapons; 
transferal or possession of plastic explosives which do not contain a 
detection agent; destruction of communication lines, energy facilities, 
national defense materials; production of defective national defense 
materials; and conduct relating to torture.
  This amendment is timely and necessary. Here is why:
  One of the crimes my amendment will be adding relates to nuclear 
weapons, as in ``Whoever knowingly provides material support, for the 
delivery, possession, use, transferal, receives, possess, alteration 
of, disposes of, or disperses, disposes of, any nuclear material and 
knowingly causes the death of or serious bodily injury to any person or 
substantial damage to property; or knows that circumstances exist which 
are likely to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to any person 
or substantial damage to property'' shall be punishable by fine or 
imprisonment.
  Therefore, if I, Alcee Hastings, give money to Hamas, knowing that 
the funds would be used to transport nuclear material to Tel Aviv, 
where it would be used against civilians, I would now be punishable 
under section 103 by imprisonment or a fine. Without this addition, the 
person who knowingly provided material support for the crime would go 
unpunished.
  By expanding the current list of crimes to include other acts 
associated with terrorism, we are making the bill more comprehensive. 
And in the shadow of recent terrorist bombings in Israel and England, 
as well as an increase of terrorist attacks within the United States, 
it is vital that we provide law enforcement with sufficient tools to 
fight these atrocities. Support the Hastings amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment is a sense-of-Congress 
resolution to Buy American wherever practicable. We certainly support 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, on the Bachus-Spratt-Leach amendment, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and I have been working 
with the Secret Service to address a problem that is critical to our 
Nation, and that is international counterfeiting.
  Members of this body may not know that over half of the counterfeit 
U.S. currency circulates overseas, and in recent years over half of the 
U.S. counterfeit currency which circulates domestically was produced 
overseas.
  We, in this legislation, have addressed it in three regards. We have 
increased the penalties for international counterfeiting. We have 
worked with the Secret Service on enhancing penalties. The Secret 
Service has less than 20 agents overseas working on this problem. They 
simply do not have the manpower. So this bill would require the orderly 
placement of additional agents overseas.
  I am happy to report the Congress has already appropriated funds for 
those agents. They would be in place by the end of this year.
  The third thing that the bill does is it calls for an evaluation of 
the extent and location of counterfeiting overseas. The gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], I think, is the expert on this area, and I 
am going to reserve to him discussion of that.
  I will close simply by saying this, Mr. Chairman. International 
counterfeiting funds terrorism. Counterfeit currency is the currency of 
choice for terrorists. It makes their activities less traceable. It 
lowers their cost of doing mischief.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina for any additional remarks which he would like to make.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to rise in support of this amendment and say that it is 
the result of nearly 2 years of investigative effort by the General 
Accounting Office, a committee hearing by the gentleman's Subcommittee 
on Government Reform, and it is fully warranted.
  Now I understand that it also meets with the approval of Treasury 
Department. We made changes to accommodate them. This deals with a 
potential problem which needs attention, and we give a mandatory 
charter to a task force that already exists, but we give them broader 
authority.
  We also ask this task force to report periodically to the Congress, 
which is a time-honored way of getting the executive branch's 
attention. This warrants support. And I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to 
acknowledge the work of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] on 
this bill, and I have also mentioned the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach] for his strong work on the bill, and to again commend the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], who a year and a half ago 
realized that we needed more of a handle on the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying every time we have 
witnessed a terrorist act throughout this world, we can know that they 
have probably used counterfeit currency to fund their operations. Not 
only that, but drug smuggling money laundering, gun running, and the 
corruption of public officials throughout the world.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], an author of one of the 
en bloc amendments.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] for including an amendment which the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich] and myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey], have worked hard on, to try and deal with what is an 
astounding gap in Federal law, a gap which allows toxic chemicals, such 
as sarin, bubonic

[[Page H2179]]

plague, and a range of other toxins to not only be made by labs which 
we support, but then to be readily made available to anyone that might 
write in and care to request from our labs thousands and thousands of 
samples of these very, very dangerous materials.
  We have laws on our books which make it illegal to make a nuclear 
bomb, but we have no laws on our books which prevent the same kind of 
destruction to take place from these kinds of chemicals and biological 
toxins.
  The legislation that is contained en bloc I think will go a long way 
toward making activities illegal, toward the licensing of individuals 
and universities and the like. We have worked closely with our 
universities, we have worked closely with the FBI, and we have worked 
closely with the CIA to deal with the incidents that have taken place, 
such as the potential sarin attack against Disneyland late last year, 
and the incidents that have taken place in both Ohio, Minnesota, and 
Mississippi by other fringe groups.
  This is important legislation, and I appreciate and thank the 
committee for accepting it en bloc.


         modification to Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a revised 
amendment to H.R. 2703 which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] 
has just handed me, which makes important corrections which are agreed 
upon, be substituted for the text that we have been discussing and that 
we will vote on with regard to Amendment No. 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment en bloc offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Add at the end the following new title:
                 TITLE  --INTERNATIONAL COUNTERFEITING

     SEC.  01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``International 
     Counterfeiting Prevention Act of 1996''.

     SEC.  02. AUDITS OF INTERNATIONAL COUNTERFEITING OF UNITED 
                   STATES CURRENCY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury (hereafter 
     in this section referred to as the ``Secretary''), in 
     consultation with the advanced counterfeit deterrence 
     steering committee, shall--
       (1) study the use and holding of United States currency in 
     foreign countries; and
       (2) develop useful estimates of the amount of counterfeit 
     United States currency that circulates outside the United 
     States each year.
       (b) Evaluation Audit Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop an effective 
     international evaluation audit plan that is designed to 
     enable the Secretary to carry out the duties described in 
     subsection (a) on a regular and thorough basis.
       (2) Submission of detailed written summary.--The Secretary 
     shall submit a detailed written summary of the evaluation 
     audit plan developed pursuant to paragraph (1) to the 
     Congress before the end of the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) 1st evaluation audit under plan.--The Secretary shall 
     begin the first evaluation audit pursuant to the evaluation 
     audit plan no later than the end of the 1-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Subsequent evaluation audits.--At least 1 evaluation 
     audit shall be performed pursuant to the evaluation audit 
     plan during each 3-year period beginning after the date of 
     the commencement of the evaluation audit referred to in 
     paragraph (3).
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall submit a written 
     report to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on the results of 
     each evaluation audit conducted pursuant to subsection (b) 
     within 90 days after the completion of the evaluation audit.
       (2) Contents.--In addition to such other information as the 
     Secretary may determine to be appropriate, each report 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following information:
       (A) A detailed description of the evaluation audit process 
     and the methods used to develop estimates of the amount of 
     counterfeit United States currency in circulation outside the 
     United States.
       (B) The method used to determine the currency sample 
     examined in connection with the evaluation audit and a 
     statistical analysis of the sample examined.
       (C) A list of the regions of the world, types of financial 
     institutions, and other entities included.
       (D) An estimate of the total amount of United States 
     currency found in each region of the world.
       (E) The total amount of counterfeit United States currency 
     and the total quantity of each counterfeit denomination found 
     in each region of the world.
       (3) Classification of information.--
       (A) In general.--To the greatest extent possible, each 
     report submitted to the Congress under this subsection shall 
     be submitted in an unclassified form.
       (B) Classified and unclassified forms.--If, in the interest 
     of submitting a complete report under this subsection, the 
     Secretary determines that it is necessary to include 
     classified information in the report, the report shall be 
     submitted in a classified and an unclassified form.
       (d) Sunset Provision.--This section shall cease to be 
     effective as of the end of the 10-year period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (e) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this section 
     shall be construed as authorizing any entity to conduct 
     investigations of counterfeit United States currency.

     SEC.   03. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SENTENCING PROVISIONS RELATING 
                   TO INTERNATIONAL COUNTERFEITING OF UNITED 
                   STATES CURRENCY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds the following:
       (1) United States currency is being counterfeited outside 
     the United States.
       (2) The 103d Congress enacted, with the approval of the 
     President on September 13, 1994, section 470 of title 18, 
     United States Code, making such activity a crime under the 
     laws of the United States.
       (3) The expeditious posting of agents of the United States 
     Secret Service to overseas posts, which is necessary for the 
     effective enforcement of section 470 and related criminal 
     provisions, has been delayed.
       (4) While section 470 of title 18, United States Code, 
     provides for a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years as 
     opposed to a maximum term of 15 years for domestic 
     counterfeiting, the United States Sentencing Commission has 
     failed to provide, in its sentencing guidelines, for an 
     appropriate enhancement of punishment for defendants 
     convicted of counterfeiting United States currency outside 
     the United States.
       (b) Timely Consideration of Requests for Concurrence in 
     Creation of Overseas Posts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall--
       (A) consider in a timely manner the request by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for the placement of such number of 
     agents of the United States Secret Service as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury considers appropriate in posts in overseas 
     embassies; and
       (B) reach an agreement with the Secretary of the Treasury 
     on such posts as soon as possible and, in any event, not 
     later than December 31, 1996.
       (2) Cooperation of treasury required.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall promptly provide any information requested by 
     the Secretary of State in connection with such requests.
       (3) Reports required.--The Secretary of the Treasury and 
     the Secretary of State shall each submit, by February 1, 
     1997, a written report to the Committee on Banking and 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate explaining the reasons for the rejection, if any, of 
     any proposed post and the reasons for the failure, if any, to 
     fill any approved post by such date.
       (c) Enhanced Penalties for International Counterfeiting of 
     United States Currency.--Pursuant to the authority of the 
     United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of 
     title 28, United States Code, the Commission shall amend the 
     sentencing guidelines prescribed by the Commission to provide 
     an appropriate enhancement of the punishment for a defendant 
     convicted under section 470 of title 18 of such Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply say this is a change that the Secret Service requested.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


                amendment no. 4 offered by ms. de lauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H2180]]


       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. DeLauro: At the end of title 
     II, add the following:

     SEC. 206. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES TO PROVIDE FOR 
                   ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A DEFENDANT WHO COMMITS 
                   A CRIME WHILE IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH A 
                   LASER SIGHTING DEVICE.

       Not later than May 1, 1997, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall, pursuant to its authority under section 994 
     of title 28, United States Code, amend the sentencing 
     guidelines (and, if the Commission considers it appropriate, 
     the policy statements of the Commission) to provide that a 
     defendant convicted of a crime shall receive an appropriate 
     sentence enhancement if, during the crime--
       (1) the defendant possessed a firearm equipped with a laser 
     sighting device; or
       (2) the defendant possessed a firearm, and the defendant 
     (or another person at the scene of the crime who was aiding 
     in the commission of the crime) possessed a laser sighting 
     device capable of being readily attached to the firearm.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro], and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, our police officers and the public are 
facing a deadly new threat on the streets of my home State of 
Connecticut and across the Nation: Laser sighting devices aimed at our 
law enforcement and law abiding citizens. These laser sights mounted on 
the barrel of a gun emit a tiny red beam of light the shooter uses to 
line up a target, thereby, if you will, creating a supergun. In the 
hands of a criminal, these high-technology weapons turn ordinary street 
thugs into sharpshooters.
  My amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase 
penalties for individuals convicted of crimes involving laser sighting 
devices. The amendment will deter the use of laser sight technology in 
street crime and require the Sentencing Commission to collect data on 
laser sighting devices and criminal activity throughout the Nation.
  Let me stress, this bill does not ban laser sight technology nor does 
it ban guns equipped with laser sights. This is not about gun control.
  I crafted this legislation with the help of local law enforcement in 
Connecticut, with their input. This legislation has one endorsement 
from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the International 
Brotherhood of Police and others. Let me read directly from the letter 
of support that I received from the National Fraternal Order of Police 
regarding the amendment:

       The police and citizens of this Nation already suffer far 
     too much from tragedies precipitated by firearms crime. This 
     problem is exacerbated by criminals using laser sights to 
     make their criminal activity even more deadly.

  I urge my colleagues to protect the public and our men and women in 
blue who put their lives on the line every day and vote in favor of 
this vital amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentlewoman to know we have 
examined the amendment, we find it important, and we are very pleased 
to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this amendment 
seems innocuous if we look at it, but what it is is an attempt by those 
who are in favor of gun control legislation to try and isolate certain 
paraphernalia that is used by law-abiding citizens in an attempt to 
make its use illegal.
  By going to the Sentencing Commission and saying that certain 
devices, if used in an act of crime, could be used to further make a 
person be further incarcerated.
  Now, that may appear to be innocuous, but when you analyze it, it is 
a further attempt by those who have in the past few years been in favor 
of taking away all guns to also take away devices.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind Members that those that are supporting this 
amendment also when we had the ban back in 1994 for semiautomatic 
weapons said that we need to ban bayonet mounts on rifles. Now, bayonet 
mounts on rifles do not kill anybody. They do not hurt anybody. Yet, 
they said they had to be banned. It is a similar thing here.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like just to let my colleague know 
that this does not ban anything.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It is a step to doing that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. No, it is an attempt to say that the criminal, the 
individual who commits the crime with this new technology, bears the 
burden of doing it and that the penalty would be increased on the 
individual. It is specifically what a lot of my colleagues have talked 
to me about, that it is the individual, the criminal, who ought to be 
penalized, and not the gun owner.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as a former 
prosecuting attorney back in Missouri and as one who has been in 
constant contact with my law enforcement officials back there, I have 
not from my local people had any great desire to ban laser sighting 
devices. In the first place, I do not know very many people that 
actually have them. So I just do not see the necessity to put this into 
a bill of this magnitude for antiterrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to my good friend from 
Missouri that they may not have invented laser sighting devices when he 
was a prosecutor.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I keep in 
contact. They have been around for some time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is still prosecuting law on 
the side?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if I just might to my colleagues say the following: It 
is my understanding that this is something that the NRA has always 
emphasized and said: Punish the criminal; do not punish the gun owner; 
do not punish the technology.
  This incident occurred in the city of New Haven, and it has on 
several occasions, where we are turning thugs into marksmen and 
sharpshooters with this device. Again, over and over again, the 
emphasis has been, place the responsibility on the criminal. If you are 
going to commit the crime, then you are going to do the time, and more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the point I was going to make to my friend from 
Missouri. In all the debates we have had on gun control, the gentleman 
has always reminded and said: Do not ban the gun, just go after the 
criminal who uses the gun illegally.
  That is just what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is doing here. She 
is not banning the device, she is not curbing its technology. She is 
simply saying, when you use it in a criminal act, you will get an 
enhanced penalty. That seems to me to be completely consistent with 
what the gentleman from Missouri has been advocating. I might say ban 
the device, but I am not on this case. But just going after the 
criminal with an enhanced penalty seems to me to be something that 
everybody in this Chamber might be able to accept. I hope we will 
support the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H2181]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close with a comment from the 
Connecticut Police Chiefs Association president:

       As you are well aware, the law enforcement community is 
     faced with many challenges today, including the use of 
     sophisticated weapons by individuals who are committing very 
     serious crimes. Your legislation is a step in the right 
     direction to reaffirm that society will not tolerate 
     sophisticated weapons by criminals against the citizens or 
     law enforcement personnel.

  This bill punishes the criminal, not law-abiding gun users or gun 
owners, and I urge its immediate passage.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the Members of the House that 
when the Judicial Sentencing Commission was initiated, and since it has 
been, it was done for the purpose of taking the Congress and the 
political arena away from sentencing and letting the Commission itself 
set sentencing. They can make this if they so desire. They can put 
anything that they determine to be legal and warrant additional 
punishment within it. But we have in the past always taken the attitude 
that we do not direct the Commission to do certain things. We let the 
Commission make their own decision as to what guidelines are to be set.
  Now, there may be minimums or maximums we may wish to put on it, but 
I do not believe it is appropriate at this time to direct the 
Sentencing Commission to make the enhanced penalties for this type of 
technology. As a result, I still oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 104-480.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 104-480.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House 
Report 104-480.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House 
Report 104-480.


                 amendment no. 9 offered by mr. schumer

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Schumer: At the end of title 
     VIII (Miscellaneous) add the following:

     SEC. 807. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2000 to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation such sums as are necessary--
       (1) to hire additional personnel, and to procure equipment, 
     to support expanded investigations of domestic and 
     international terrorism activities;
       (2) to establish a Domestic Counterterrorism Center to 
     coordinate and centralize Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement efforts in response to major terrorist incidents, 
     and as a clearinghouse for all domestic and international 
     terrorism information and intelligence; and
       (3) to cover costs associated with providing law 
     enforcement coverage of public events offering the potential 
     of being targeted by domestic or international terrorists.
       Conform the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was in the bill that left the 
House. It is one of the amendments that law enforcement considers of 
great importance. It would allow the various agencies to coordinate the 
fight against terrorism.
  Let me stress that these days the fight against terrorism is 
something that involves not just one agency, and so what the amendment 
does is put back in the bill three important resources that the FBI 
asked for that were included in the bill as originally reported out of 
committee and was stripped out of the bill before it came to the floor.
  They were, first, additional personnel to investigate both domestic 
and foreign terrorism; second, the establishment of domestic counter-
terrorism to coordinate a domestic counter-terrorism center to 
coordinate the resources of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
against domestic terrorism; and finally a fund for protecting against 
terrorism at major public events such as the upcoming Olympics.
  It seems to me there should not be too much opposition to this. We 
need a great deal of coordination among the various agencies. We are 
now getting information from satellites and NSA and everything else, 
and I hope that the amendment will be adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


         amendment no. 10 offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: 
     Page 151, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 25 
     on page 176.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt] and a Member opposed will each control 15 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the Members that the gentlewoman 
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], who is a cosponsor of this amendment, is 
apparently en route from her district and may not make it in time for 
the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to my colleagues that, as the 
prior vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] 
indicated, there is a substantial division in our ranks about the 
extent to which we must go to protect constitutional rights and 
freedoms and still feel that we are making a concerted and effective 
effort against terrorism. It is a very, very difficult issue, and there 
are some of us, myself included, who believe that we cannot afford to 
undermine our Constitution and the rights and protections our 
Constitution provides to individual citizens in this country because, 
when we do that, we undermine the very fabric of our Nation.
  What has happened in this amendment is that we are trying to remove 
from the ambit of this bill a provision which was not in the bill which 
came out of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the 
Judiciary considered the antiterrorism bill, went through a long, 
drawn-out evaluation of that bill, and voted out a bill which had no 
provisions in it dealing with habeas corpus.
  Apparently, after the bill was voted out of committee, the 
leadership, in an effort to expand the coverage of the bill and pick up 
votes from various places to try to pass the bill, saw fit to add 
habeas corpus provisions to this bill. Habeas corpus has nothing to do 
with terrorism in our country. If it does, it has such a small amount 
to do with it that it certainly was not something that was in the 
contemplation of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Let me explain to my colleagues that the habeas corpus provisions 
were put in the Constitution of the United States years and years and 
years ago

[[Page H2182]]

for the purpose of protecting individual citizens and giving them the 
right to seek an independent review and have the court determine that 
their government, in some cases, was doing an injustice to them in that 
the government was holding them improperly.
  The habeas corpus language in the Constitution has no color, it has 
no political ideology. It is not designed to protect one group of 
people against other groups of people. It is designed to protect 
individuals, individual citizens of our country, when the government 
makes a mistake and puts an individual in jail improperly. It gives 
that individual citizen the right to seek a review by the court and 
have the court make an independent determination of whether the 
incarceration is proper or not proper.
  This bill, as it is currently written, not the bill that came out of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, but the bill that is proposed on this 
floor, substantially cuts back on the rights of individual citizens 
under habeas corpus, and I want to encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, the remark made by the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt] that habeas corpus has nothing to do with 
terrorism; I have heard that several times, and I am kind of at a loss 
as to the logic behind that because a terrorist who murders somebody, 
and that is what they do, that is their business, deserves the death 
penalty, and if they get the death penalty, they ought not hang around 
like John Wayne Gacey did for 14 years, or like William Bonner did for 
16 years, or like Kermit Smith did for 14 years, or like Robert Alton 
Harris did for 13 years. Justice ought to be imposed surely and 
swiftly.
  Now this amendment simply maintains the status quo on habeas corpus 
by striking the entire title. We are not ignoring due process for the 
convicted. We seek closure and finality for the judgment that has been 
rendered and some compassion for the families of the victims who wait 
years and years and years. And that is the name of the game: Stretch it 
out, and then maybe get a new trial 10 years later where there are no 
witnesses to be found. We understand that. These things ought to be 
adjudicated reasonably swiftly, reasonably with dispatch, fairly. But 
14 years is an absurdity; it makes the law a joke.
  Diane Leonard, the widow of a Secret Service agent who died in the 
Oklahoma City blast, said this:

       For victims there are no indictments, no pretrial hearings, 
     no trials, no appeals, no chances for remorse, and no doubt 
     of their innocence; yet for those who commit these crimes 
     where there is no doubt of guilt there is only appeal after 
     appeal after appeal.

  The same provisions in the bill, our bill, passed the Senate in June 
1995 as the vote was 91 to 8. This is a major plank in the Contract 
With America anticrime policy.
  Now under our bill it simply requires that all claims be brought in 
the single petition. The time period for filing is 1 year after the 
U.S. Supreme Court rejects a direct appeal. Subsequent petitions will 
be allowed if the convicted defendant can show cause for not including 
the claim in his first petition. Government suppression of evidence, 
newly discovered evidence proving innocence, are also grounds for a new 
appeal. Deference is given to State courts' legal decisions if they are 
not contrary to established Supreme Court precedent. The prisoner can 
rebut any presumption by clear and convincing evidence. But now it 
takes more than a decade to carry out a death sentence, and that is an 
injustice.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment of the gentleman and the 
gentlewoman be defeated, and that we proceed with habeas corpus reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is supposed to be 
dealing with terrorists. It is an antiterrorism bill.
  Mr. Chairman, habeas corpus got onto the antiterrorism bill in the 
following way. Everybody thought that this was a fast train that could 
take on anything that was hanging around the Committee on the 
Judiciary. As it turned out, antiterrorism is not a fast train to 
anywhere, because it is really a crime bill. Now it is a gutted 
antiterrorist bill. Now we have a gutted antiterrorist bill, and habeas 
corpus reform that we have been trying to get through, restricting 
constitutional rights, for years. It has never gotten anywhere.
  Mr. Chairman, it would not do for the ranking member on the Committee 
on the Judiciary to explain that again for maybe the 25th time in my 
career, but what about a former Attorney General named Ben Civiletti? 
What about the comments of a former Attorney General named Nicholas 
Katzenbach? What about of the comments of a former Attorney General 
named Edward H. Levy? What about the comments of an Attorney General, 
former Attorney General, named Elliott L. Richardson? Two Republicans, 
two Democratic former Attorney Generals.
  Here is what they say: ``The habeas corpus provisions which the House 
will soon take up are unconstitutional.'' They did not say that maybe 
they will be found unconstitutional, or that they could be challenged 
for unconstitutionality. They said ``They are unconstitutional,'' four 
Attorneys General. ``Though intended in large part to expedite the 
death penalty review process, the litigation and constitutional rulings 
will in fact delay and frustrate the imposition of the death penalty.''
  Do Members understand that? Is this partisan? Are these liberals? Is 
this the left? Four Attorneys General are telling us this provision is 
going to be ruled unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, what that means, non-lawyers in the Congress, is that 
it will then take longer to execute people than it does now. Mr. 
Chairman, I get a little tired of hearing somebody telling me about one 
14-year case. If we check the one 14-year case, it was not because the 
judges were sleeping, it was not because the prosecutors were not 
prosecuting. There might have been some reason that one case took 14 
years. There are a lot of cases where people get executed, and if we 
had had more time, they would be alive today.
  Mr. Chairman, let us get off of this unusual example of three people 
whose cases took years and years and years.
  Mr. Chairman, the same person who is telling me not to believe in 
this process was the same person that just told me on the previous 
amendment that we ought to believe in the system.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
very learned gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has given us some distinguished names of 
Attorneys General. I would like to give him a few: Griffin Bell, Dick 
Thornburg, William Barr, and the late William French Smith. Also, all 
of the State attorneys general in the country have signed onto habeas 
corpus reform. Yes; we should not talk about that one horrible case, or 
those three horrible cases. Let us talk about the average. The average 
is 8 to 10 years, from sentencing until execution.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to what the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is, I think, saying. What the chairman is trying to 
explain to all of us today is that we have been waiting for years to 
get an effective death penalty, for years to get a death penalty that 
has the meaning of swiftness and certainty of punishment for those who 
might perpetrate murders and other heinous crimes that are subject to 
the death penalty.
  We are not sending the message. That is, the primary reason why we 
have a death penalty is to send the message to people. Another reason, 
of course, is to execute people because that is their just desserts, 
and because we ought to be doing that, in certain heinous cases, to get 
them off the streets.
  However, to me, the primary reason for the death penalty always has 
been to send a message to would-be perpetrators of murder and other 
violent

[[Page H2183]]

crimes that get the death penalty, ``If you do it, you are going to get 
the ultimate sentence, the sentence of death.'' People do not tend to 
believe that if they can delay and delay, and see other people delaying 
and delaying the carrying out of their sentences. Whether it is 8, 10, 
14 years, whatever it is, it is far too long.
  If anybody is truly innocent, if they have evidence that they did not 
commit the crime, there is nothing in the procedures we are putting in 
this bill today or we passed on the floor of the House last year in 
this Congress that would keep them from raising it at any time, and 
stopping the execution. But if we look at what we are doing today, we 
are getting at the procedural problems that have caused these delays; 
the opportunities, after you have had your regular appeal all the way 
to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of guilt or innocence, and all 
the procedural matters, your opportunity to go into Federal court and 
seek a petition to give you freedom, based on the fact that maybe you 
did not have a proper attorney, or maybe you did not have the jury 
selected properly, or maybe there is some other technical deficiency in 
the way the trial was conducted and you ought to get relief from 
Federal court, after you have exhausted your normal appeals.
  All we are saying is, instead of being able to carry them one after 
another, ad seriatim, with excessive petitions to the Supreme Court and 
delaying the carrying out of the sentence, you have to put them all 
into one at one time, or lose your opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I think 
that is very critical.
  We are asking for a deference in those kinds of rulings to State 
court decisions; not that it cannot be overcome, but on the facts in 
the trial that has occurred underlying it. Why should the Federal 
courts go back and review all of these matters over and over again on a 
procedural basis, if they have a clear record in front of them?
  It has just simply been the fact that in this country we have delayed 
the carrying out of these sentences it seems to me almost forever. It 
is long since past due that we put this into law. Yes; we have passed 
this out before. Yes; the President has said he will sign it if we can 
ever get it to him, but it looks to us as though it is a logical place 
to put it, to put it on this bill today. It is why the bill has been 
renamed, to try to emphasize the fact that now we think we have a 
vehicle, with a few other things, we can finally get to the other body, 
send to the President, and get this signed into law to end the 
seemingly endless appeals of death row inmates. It is about time we 
passed it.
  Anybody that votes against this, votes for this amendment, has to 
know they are gutting this provision out, and they are going to delay 
the process even further.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason Attorney Generals Levy, Richardson, 
Katzenbach, and Civiletti have explained they tried hard to explain 
that what the Members are trying to do is unconstitutional. I know you 
want to fry them as soon as you can, I know that any time is too long. 
How dare a Member of Congress that serves on the committee that makes 
the law on this get up and say in broad daylight that it takes too long 
to execute a person in America, under the process we have? And instead 
of bringing this up on its own merits, we wait until we get an 
emotionally charged piece of legislation and bring up habeas corpus, 
which has no relationship to terrorism whatsoever. How long is too 
long?
  Mr. Chairman, by the way, Attorney General Edwin Meese, did he join 
the gentleman on that, too?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no, that was Griffin 
Bell, Dick Thornburg, William Barr, William French Smith. I forget Dan 
Lundgren, the attorney general of California. But all, all of the State 
attorneys general and their association have signed on.
  We do not try them and kill them as soon as possible. The average now 
is 8 to 10 years. If the gentleman would think of the victims' families 
waiting for justice to be done, the gentleman might have a more 
moderated tone toward this issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for describing what 
my tone ought to be for the victims' families. However, I know victims' 
families that oppose the death penalty. They do not want them executed 
in 10 years or 2 years or 2 days, because they happen to have another 
view from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. I understand that, and there are more people who support 
the death penalty overwhelmingly than oppose it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield one more time, 
I will never ask him again.
  Mr. HYDE. I would hate to think that the gentleman would never ask me 
again.
  Mr. CONYERS. Then I will take it back.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this, sir, is there not something redeeming 
about us passing legislation on its own bottom, since more people want 
this, since the gentleman has as many Attorney Generals, and then throw 
in Dan Lundgren on top of it? Could we not just have a bill that 
studies the death penalty, and we come up on it? Why do we have to tack 
it onto a piece of antiterrorist legislation which, unfortunately for 
both you and I, has been gutted?
  Mr. HYDE. I am going to have to reclaim my time. Again, I have been 
illuminated by the gentleman, although I totally disagree.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that 
regardless of what your position is on this issue, whether political or 
personal belief, it is a legitimate issue, the death penalty. For 40 
years we have not been able, as the gentleman said, to have habeas 
corpus or death penalty reform. There is a new majority that represents 
the majority of people that feel that there should be some reform.
  Let me explain, the gentleman mentioned the frivolous cases. We just 
had a gentleman in California to kill 14 kids, we just executed. That 
is one case. We have another one which the gentleman knows about, Alton 
Harris. This is a confessed killer in my district. He went out and 
killed two young boys, after eating their hamburgers and taunting the 
second one, and then killed him. Yet, even an admitted killer took 14 
years to execute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about we are building more prisons 
than we are facilities for education. Let us press on with it. let us 
take care of the people that are the criminals, and have justice be 
done. Think about the injustice to the families that have to suffer all 
the way through this, for the period of time.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman, he speaks of a legitimate issue 
and what he believes in, but we need to press on with this. The 
American people support it. I ask Members to support the position of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].


      withdrawal of demand for recorded vote on de lauro amendment

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
demand for a recorded vote on a previous amendment, the DeLauro 
amendment. Even though I do not agree with this amendment, I do not 
believe it is appropriate to take the time of the House for a recorded 
vote on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The DeLauro amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H2184]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to argue that we 
should not, in an illogical way, attribute to those who oppose the 
language of adding habeas corpus gutting to this terrorist bill as 
being against the death penalty. I think what we should focus on, Mr. 
Chairman, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is the fact that we are 
destroying an historic relationship between the Federal courts and the 
State courts. That is, to give another level of constitutional 
privilege to those who would be subjected to the death penalty.
  It is a historic role. It is a confirmed role. The real direction 
that we should take, if we are serious about any habeas corpus reform, 
would be, frankly, to address it head on. That is, to have hearings, to 
address the situation, and not worry about whether it took 4 years or 3 
years. It is important to do it right. This is the wrong way. We should 
support the Watt-Chenoweth amendment, and ensure that we have liberties 
for all Americans.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who has the 
right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. As chairman of the committee the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has the right to close.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members of this body have asked how we could have 
a coalition on this issue between myself and the gentlewoman from Idaho 
[Mrs. Chenoweth], those people knowing of course that we are not always 
philosophically in tune with each other, the two of us. I want to spend 
the balance of my time talking about that, because I think it reflects 
something on this issue.
  The writ of habeas corpus was inserted into the Constitution of the 
United States to provide protections for individual citizens vis-a-vis 
their Government. I am not an individual who believes that the 
Government is constantly out to be insidious with its citizens, but 
sometimes the Government makes mistakes. When that occurs, individual 
citizens ought to have the right and the ability to petition the 
judicial branch of Government to have that mistake redressed.
  That is a proposition that is not unique to people on the left end of 
the political spectrum or the right end of the political spectrum or 
the middle of the political spectrum. It is not a proposition that is 
unique to black people in our country, white people in our country, or 
any shades between. It is a right that our U.S. Constitution provides 
to each and every citizen in this country.
  What has happened is that people in the middle have now decided that, 
``Well, the government is never going to take any action that is 
contrary to my rights, so I do not need habeas corpus any more.'' That 
is what is happening in this bill. This bill essentially destroys the 
writ of habeas corpus in our country.
  What I am entreating my colleagues to do is to stand up and 
understand the tremendous value that this great writ provides to the 
citizens of this country, regardless of their political persuasions, 
regardless of their political beliefs.
  The gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] and I are far, far apart 
on many, many issues, but on this one we agree with former Attorneys 
General Benjamin Civiletti, Edward Levi, Nicholas Katzenbach, and 
Elliot Richardson, the American Bar Association, and we believe that we 
agree with every single citizen of the United States of America that 
this is a right and protection in our Constitution that is worth being 
preserved. Please help us preserve it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the writ of habeas corpus. It is a great 
writ. I want to preserve it. I want it to be strong. I do not want it 
to be weakened.
  So those of us who simply want justice not to be delayed for an 
average of 8 to 10 years, those of us who are concerned that the 
families of victims have a right to see that justice is done, those of 
us who look at the case of one Kermit Smith, it is not that it took 14 
years from the sentencing to his execution, but 46 different judges 
considered his case and it went to the U.S. Supreme Court five 
different times.
  Now, we have to have some answer not to the use of habeas corpus but 
to the abuse of habeas corpus. All we are asking, we are not 
bloodthirsty. We simply say look, if you have been convicted, if you 
have had your direct appeal, then you have had your habeas appeal 
through the State courts, through the Federal court, let us come to 
closure and let justice be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held 
until tomorrow. The mother of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth] is ill and the gentlewoman cannot be here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I join with the gentleman in that request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The vote will be held tomorrow.
  The Chair will still put the question to a voice vote before rolling 
the vote.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in House 
Report 104-480.


               preferential motion offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  the CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Volkmer moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
     the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the 
     enacting clause by stricken.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, as I have reviewed this legislation, I 
have some serious misgivings about it. I am desirous that we continue 
to have the provision in the bill that is sponsored by the gentleman 
from Illinois on habeas corpus.
  I am sorry I have to disagree with the gentleman from North Carolina 
in regard to that matter, and the gentleman from Michigan, but I 
believe that that matter should remain in the bill. The bill, other 
than that, I have some serious misgivings. I surely think that if this 
bill was reported back and we had to go back to committee, I think the 
committee could probably do a lot better job than what you have done so 
far.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's parliamentary finesse has 
always stood the House of Representatives in good standing and credit. 
I only wish I could have thought of this motion and then had the 
courage to follow through on it, being the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  But am I not correct that we are at this situation? We have had the 
principal vehicle of the Committee on the Judiciary gutted. We now only 
have a substitute remaining. The measure is probably a lower grade 
crime bill, certainly not an antiterrorist bill. So I do not have a 
reason in the world why I should object to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. We cannot get all excited about what we have left, Is 
that that the gentleman is saying?
  Mr. CONYERS. Not just not excited but disappointed.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman 
from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. No. I would like to get my own time in opposition. May that 
be done?

[[Page H2185]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is moving to strike the 
enacting clause and to kill this legislation. I know that would please 
him and it certainly would not disappoint the gentleman from Michigan, 
but I think it would disappoint a lot of people, such as the families 
of the victims at Oklahoma City whom I have met, such as the families 
of the victims of pan Am 103 whom I have met, such as the hostages who 
returned from Lebanon who were here the other day, such as the daughter 
of Leon Klinghoffer, who was murdered by thugs on the Achille Lauro. 
These are people who would like to see us pass this legislation.
  You may think there is nothing left, but there is substantial good 
left in the bill, despite the Barr amendment which I deplore. One of 
the things left is the ability of the victims' families to sue 
terrorist countries and perpetrators of terrorist acts in this country 
and get a judgment, because some of their assets are here have been 
frozen. So that alone makes this worthwhile.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very strong argument 
for the bill, and I will have to continue to consider it as a result of 
his statement and elucidation about all the good things in the bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Does the gentleman mean I am persuading him?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I will not ask for a recorded vote on this motion. We 
will just let it pass and go on with the regular amendments.
  Mr. HYDE. I certainly thank the gentleman for his vote of confidence 
in my persuasive ability.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is controlling the time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] every time I get a chance, but he has just witnessed what I 
have. Now, crying for the victims after this bill is gutted does not do 
a service to anybody connected with this measure.
  This is not an antiterrorist bill any longer. It is a low-grade crime 
bill that we could have gotten out any day in the week. It has a very 
sad and shaky future, and I am very disappointed that the gentleman 
from Missouri may not ask for a record vote. Anybody on this floor can 
ask for a record vote.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, I recognize that. I was hoping that 
we could be able to continue with the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The preferential motion was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


          amendment no. 12 offered by mr. bartlett of maryland

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland: Add 
     at the end the following new title:

   TITLE  --COMMISSION ON THE ADVANCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

     SEC.   01. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law Enforcement'' 
     (in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC.  02. DUTIES.

       The Commission shall investigate, ascertain, evaluation, 
     report, and recommend action to the Congress on the following 
     matters:
       (1) In general, the manner in which significant Federal 
     criminal law enforcement operations are conceived, planned, 
     coordinated, and executed.
       (2) The standards and procedures used by Federal law 
     enforcement to carry out significant Federal criminal law 
     enforcement operations, and their uniformity and 
     compatibility on an interagency basis, including standards 
     related to the use of deadly force.
       (3) The criminal investigation and handling by the United 
     States Government, and the Federal law enforcement agencies 
     therewith--
       (A) on February 28, 1993, in Waco, Texas, with regard to 
     the conception, planning, and execution of search and arrest 
     warrants that resulted in the deaths of 4 Federal law 
     enforcement officers and 6 civilians;
       (B) regarding the efforts to resolve the subsequent 
     standoff in Waco, Texas, which ended in the deaths of over 80 
     civilians on April 19, 1993; and
       (C) concerning other Federal criminal law enforcement 
     cases, at the Commission's discretion, which have been 
     presented to the courts or to the executive branch of 
     Government in the last 25 years that are actions or 
     complaints based upon claims of abuse of authority, practice, 
     procedure, or violations of constitutional guarantees, and 
     which may indicate a pattern or problem of abuse within an 
     enforcement agency or a sector of the enforcement community.
       (4) The necessity for the present number of Federal law 
     enforcement agencies and units.
       (5) The location and efficacy of the office or entity 
     directly responsible, aside from the President of the United 
     States, for the coordination on an interagency basis of the 
     operations, programs, and activities of all of the Federal 
     law enforcement agencies.
       (6) The degree of assistance, training, education, and 
     other human resource management assets devoted to increasing 
     professionalism for Federal law enforcement officers.
       (7) The independent accountability mechanisms that exist, 
     if any, and their efficacy to investigate, address, and 
     correct systemic or gross individual Federal law enforcement 
     abuses.
       (8) The extent to which Federal law enforcement agencies 
     have attempted to pursue community outreach efforts that 
     provide meaningful input into the shaping and formation of 
     agency policy, including seeking and working with State and 
     local law enforcement agencies on Federal criminal 
     enforcement operations or programs that directly impact a 
     State or local law enforcement agency's geographic 
     jurisdiction.
       (9) Such other related matters as the Commission deems 
     appropriate.

     SEC.  03. MEMBERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 5 members appointed as follows:
       (1) 1 member appointed by the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate.
       (2) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (3) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (4) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the House 
     of Representatives.
       (5) 1 member (who shall chair the Commission) appointed by 
     the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
       (b) Disqualification.--A person who is an officer or 
     employee of the United States shall not be appointed a member 
     of the Commission.
       (c) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission.
       (d) Quorum.--3 members of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chair of the Commission.
       (f) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission who is not 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall be 
     compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day, including travel time, during 
     which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission.

     SEC.  04. STAFFING AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Director.--The Commission shall have a director who 
     shall be appointed by the Chair of the Commission.
       (b) Staff.--Subject to rules prescribed by the Commission, 
     the Director may appoint additional personnel as the 
     Commission considers appropriate.
       (c) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Director and staff of the Commission shall be appointed 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and shall 
     be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (d) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services of experts and 
     consultants under section 3109(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     per day the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General Schedule.

     SEC.  05. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purposes of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act 
     at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as 
     the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it. The Commission may establish rules for its 
     proceedings.
       (b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     section.
       (c) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out

[[Page H2186]]

     this title. Upon request of the Chair of the Commission, the 
     head of that department or agency shall furnish that 
     information to the Commission.
       (d) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this title.
       (e) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas 
     requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
     production of any evidence relating to any matter under 
     investigation by the Commission. The attendance of witnesses 
     and the production of evidence may be required from any place 
     within the United States at any designated place of hearing 
     within the United States.
       (2) Failure to obey subpoena.--If a person refuses to obey 
     a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Commission may 
     apply to the United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
     shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued 
     by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is to be made under paragraph (2) may be served 
     in the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (f) Immunity.--The Commission is an agency of the United 
     States for the purpose of part V of title 18, United States 
     Code (relating to immunity of witnesses).

     SEC.  06. REPORT.

       The Commission shall transmit a report to the Congress and 
     the public not later than 2 years after a quorum of the 
     Commission has been appointed. The report shall contain a 
     detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
     Commission, together with the Commission's recommendations 
     for such actions as the Commission considers appropriate.

     SEC.  07. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after submitting the 
     report required by this title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Bartlett] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. This amendment is a very simple 
amendment. What it does is to set up a blue-ribbon commission that will 
function for 2 years. The commission will have responsibility to look 
over our Federal law enforcement agencies and to make recommendations 
relative to their charter as to how they operate and as to how they can 
better function so that we can again achieve the high level of public 
confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies that is necessary 
for them to act efficiently and effectively.
  As you know, there have been some incidents, like Waco and Ruby 
Ridge, that have caused a great number of our constituents to lose 
confidence in our Federal law enforcement agencies. We have many brave 
people in these law enforcement agencies that every day put their life 
on the line. It is unfair to ask them to function in an environment in 
which far too many of our people lack the kind of confidence that they 
should have in our Federal law enforcement agencies and in the 
individuals who work there.
  It is the intent of this amendment that we will, as a result of their 
findings and their recommendations, reestablish, reestablish confidence 
in our Federal law enforcement agencies so that they can be more 
effective in their work.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. I would like to state, Mr. Chairman, that the majority 
accepts the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Maryland. We 
find it is useful, and it makes a contribution to this generic problem. 
We are pleased to accept it.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that a commission to evaluate public 
confidence on the current state of Federal law enforcement would be put 
into this sandwich that we have got on the floor now. We do not have 
anything in it. We have got to put something in it. So let us go back 
into, Mr. Bartlett, Waco. We had three committees spend millions of 
dollars. We had every law enforcement office in the Federal Government 
before the House and Senate. But you did not get enough, did you? The 
gentleman from Maryland did not get enough, did he? The gentleman wants 
to go into it some more.
  Let us look at Waco some more, please. The Attorney General, the 
Secretary of the Treasury, the head of three other agencies, the two 
top-ranking members other than the Director of the FBI, 50 other 
witnesses, lawyers from all over the planet, the witnesses, people that 
survived Waco, and we now come to it under this antiterrorist bill and 
want to set up a blue-ribbon commission.
  May I ask one question? Who would be on this commission?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
law enforcement experts. Law enforcement experts.
  Mr. CONYERS. Who?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Law enforcement, really, experts.
  Mr. CONYERS. Law enforcement experts like who?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I cannot designate who would be appointed 
by those who have the responsibility of making the appointment under 
this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Who would make the appointments?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Speaker, minority leader, there would be 
five, and they are all designated by individuals like that, bipartisan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman be very greatly disappointed in the 
legislative product that is on the floor, which is antiterrorism, if 
his measure happened to not succeed?
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Yes, I would. I think that we have a 
major----
  Mr. CONYERS. Wait a minute. That is all I wanted to know.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to back the gentleman's comment.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we hear from the other side all the time 
another commission, another commission. We should not have commissions. 
All of a sudden, we know what this is all about. It is about Waco. The 
Waco hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Gov Ops 
Committee did not accomplish what those acolytes of the NRA wanted. It 
showed what David Koresh was. It showed our law enforcement people did 
an estimable job, it showed very simply that the conflagration that 
occurred was the fault of David Koresh himself. But now they are going 
back to it. I suppose they do not want it to be in Congress anymore. We 
would show them up again. Instead they are going to a commission. I 
think this is a total waste of money here. We strike out provisions 
that would fight Hamas and fight other terrorist organizations, and we 
put this commission in.
  We know what this bill is becoming. This bill is becoming an NRA wish 
list. That is all it is. And I do not think it should be here. This 
does not belong here. It makes no sense at all. And what we have 
learned here is that this body is less interested in fighting terrorism 
and more interested in showing their obeisance to the NRA. It is an 
absolute disgrace.
  Mr. CONYERS. May I say, my colleague from New York is always 
temperate in his remarks and is thoughtful in analyzing the 
contributions or problems that other organizations raise that lobby us 
all the time.
  I just think that this would strike a blow at the confidence in our 
judicial system and criminal justice system that Chairman Hyde 
reiterated his strong confidence in only a few hours earlier.

[[Page H2187]]

  I have got confidence in this system. Doggone it, it has been wrong a 
lot of times, but do we really think a blue-ribbon commission of ladies 
and gentlemen appointed by the Speaker and the minority leader would 
get to the bottom of this?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. I wanted to answer your question. Yes, I think so, because 
we may need that to get enough votes to pass this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. I know we are grabbing for votes, sir, but I do not know 
if the Bartlett amendment will help in this quest or not.
  Well, one person has volunteered that the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Bartlett] is doing the work of the Lord on this bill. Well, if we 
need it, fellows, what the heck.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that my colleagues have made an 
overemphasis of the exploration of episodes like Ruby Ridge and Waco. 
The real intent of this is, as I stated, to reinstill public confidence 
in our Federal law enforcement agencies.
  I would point out to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] that 
this is apparently also the dream of the ACLU, because they have 
endorsed this amendment. LEAA and ACLU have both endorsed this 
amendment. So it has very broad support from the public community.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Bryant of Tennessee

  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Bryant of Tennessee:
       Add the following at the end:
                     TITLE   --REPRESENTATION FEES

     SEC.   01.--REPRESENTATION FEES IN CRIMINAL CASES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3006A title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Disclosure of fees.--The amounts paid under this 
     subsection, for representation in any case, shall be made 
     available to the public.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Disclosure of fees.--The amounts paid under this 
     subsection for services in any case shall be made available 
     to the public.''.
       (b) Fees and Expenses in Capital Cases.--Section 408(q)(10) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(q)(10)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(10)(A) Compensation shall be paid to attorneys appointed 
     under this subsection at a rate of not less than $75, and not 
     more than $125, per hour for in-court and out-of-court time. 
     Fees and expenses shall be paid for investigative, expert, 
     and other reasonably necessary services authorized under 
     paragraph (9) at the rates and in the amounts authorized 
     under section 3006A of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(B) The amounts paid under this paragraph for services in 
     any case shall be made available to the public.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     apply to cases commenced on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Bryant] and a member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a narrow amendment, one that I think is very 
appropriate and necessary, given the apparent loss of credibility that 
our judiciary system is suffering in this country. It is narrow in the 
sense that it amends the law which allows a Federal judge in death 
penalty cases to award court-appointed lawyers for these death row 
inmates an unlimited amount per hour, completely in the court's own 
discretion, as to what that rate may be.
  We think it would be appropriate that we set some constraints on 
this. We want to ensure that the judiciary does remain independent, and 
as part of that fee-setting this is necessary. On the other hand, we 
think also that the courts should be accountable to the taxpayers, in 
particular, for some potentially outrageous awards per hour that they 
award the court-appointed attorneys. We have heard instances in the 
past where the courts have awarded these lawyers up to $250 an hour for 
their work both in court and out of court, which is much higher an hour 
than the rate allowed for other cases.
  We also think that in these awards of attorneys' fees and expenses, 
there ought to be a requirement to the American public, to the 
taxpayers, that these be made public. And this amendment also requires 
public disclosure of these fees.
  We have also asked that, rather than leaving the discretion 
completely in the hands of the judge, that we allow that judge to award 
fees in the range of $75 to $125 per hour. This is consistent with the 
judge's own guide to judiciary policies and procedures. We think, 
again, that this is a fair, a commonsense balance that we can reach 
here.
  I hope we will have the support of all Members of Congress as, again, 
we close, I think, a very signature loophole in the law which allows 
this, I believe, travesty to occur. Again, we maintain a fair balance 
between the independence of the judiciary as well as set some 
standards, set some accountability for the American people and the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition, I really rise in 
support, if that is appropriate.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
and I as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that we have already basically wiped out any 
rights if we passed the hebeas corpus provision that someone on death 
row has to defend themselves.
  The appropriations process is in the process of wiping out the death 
penalty centers which provides any semblance of legal representation to 
people who have been sentenced to death in our country. And here we are 
now trying to do even more to speed up our Nation putting people to 
death. We should be ashamed.
  There is not any other place in the judiciary or decisionmaking 
process where judges do not have discretion, when they have the 
statutory ability and right to award legal fees, to determine what a 
reasonable legal fees, to determine what a reasonable legal fee is or 
is not.
  So this is not different in any respect from any other area of the 
law. It is already virtually impossible to find lawyers who have any 
background in providing the kind of representation that I thought our 
legal system insisted that every defendant in this country ought to 
have. It is something that we have supported as a proposition for as 
long as this country has existed, the right to legal representation.
  Yet here we are saying, give me a novice lawyer who has no experience 
to defend a person whose life is on the line. We ought to be ashamed of 
ourselves in this body if we have gotten to this point.
  Let the judges continue to exercise the degree of discretion that 
they have had in this area. There has been no showing in the Committee 
on the Judiciary that that has been abused. Let us vote down this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an argument on the validity of the death 
penalty. It is simply setting a cap on what

[[Page H2188]]

is, I am embarrassed myself as an attorney to stand up and tell the 
American public we are paying people in Tennessee at least $250 an 
hour, which I do not know of a single lawyer in Tennessee that makes 
that much outside of this range. We are simply saying that these 
attorneys are entitled to fair compensation.
  The figure that I choose, leaving discretion to the judge to award 
anywhere from $75 an hour to $125 an hour, which I think will hire a 
good, competent attorney anywhere in this United States, within that 
range, which is the range actually suggested by the courts' own guide 
to judiciary policy and procedures. So this is nothing unusual. This is 
a range they are comfortable with, and I think we need to cap that, 
again. To allow judges that unfettered discretion to come in and award 
in cases up to $250,000, when we multiply the rate times $250 an hour, 
is certainly an embarrassment to me as an attorney.
  What we are doing is taking here reasonable, not draconian steps, but 
reasonable steps; $125 an hour is again very appropriate in certain 
areas of this country. We do not violate anyone's rights here. It is 
common sense, reasonable legislation. I would urge my colleagues to 
close this loophole and vote for this very good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], I do not know where the gentleman has been 
practicing law, but even in the gentleman's State, I can assure the 
gentleman, and I hope we can get some statistics for the gentleman for 
his benefit, but the lawyers who represent people in bankruptcy law, 
the corporation lawyers, the litigators, the trial lawyers, all of 
those who represent transnational, if the gentleman would talk to them 
about representing corporations, inanimate objects, at $175 an hour, 
they would laugh the gentleman off the floor of the House of 
Representatives. If the gentleman has been a lawyer, the gentleman 
knows it, just like I do.
  Now, I know capping is the big thing in the 104th Congress; whatever 
it is, we want it cap it. But these are death penalty cases. This is a 
human being's life that hangs in the balance.
  Mr. Chairman, do my colleagues know the one reason that the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] can cite all these years that cases went 
before getting a final disposition in death penalty cases? The reason 
is there were young lawyers, new lawyers, untrained lawyers.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let be begin my remarks by saying I will put a 
statement in the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I might also say for noncapital cases, for people who 
are appointed in Federal court to represent people who go to jail for 
life sentences, it might not be capital cases, but who go to jail for 
20 or 30 years of their life, are appointed at a fee schedule of $40 
per hour out of court, $60 per hour in court, and $75 per hour in high 
expense areas. The judges have the right to increase those amounts, and 
they have not done so for 10 years.
  So those folks have the attorney to keep people out of jail for 
years. What we are talking about here is very appropriate for death 
penalty cases. Again, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the height of micro-management, the Congress of 
the United States debating a provision that would set attorney's fees 
and take that discretion away from judges.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the height of hypocrisy for people who believe in 
States rights to now say that all of a sudden we are going to set 
attorney's fees. This amendment is not even limited to Federal cases. 
It is the height of inhumanity to say that a person who has his life in 
the balance and has not even been found guilty or innocent, has his 
life in the balance, we ought to be passing an amendment like this.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to be ashamed if we pass this amendment.
  My colleagues, come to your senses and defeat this amendment today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed 
in House Report 104-480.


                amendment no. 15 offered by mr. martini

  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Martini: Add at the end the 
     following:

              TITLE    --DEATH PENALTY AGGRAVATING FACTOR

     SEC.   . DEATH PENALTY AGGRAVATING FACTOR.

       Section 3592(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding after paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(16) Multiple killings or attempted killings.--The 
     defendant intentionally kills or attempts to kill more than 
     one person in a single criminal episode.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Martini] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment in response to a 
horrible tragedy that occurred in my congressional district almost 1 
year ago. On March 21, 1995, in the early evening, a man walked into 
the Montclair, NJ postal substation and summarily killed two postal 
employees and two postal customers. Postal workers Stanley Walensky and 
Ernest Spruill were killed in that incident, along with Robert Leslie 
and George Lomaga, who also had their lives senselessly lost in that 
criminal act. Another victim by the name of David Grossman fortunately 
survived, despite two severe gunshot wounds.
  Immediately thereafter, a manhunt began to find the individual who 
committed such a heinous crime. Within several days, law enforcement 
officials captured a Christopher Green, who shortly thereafter admitted 
that he murdered these four individuals.
  As a former assistant U.S. attorney, I and others in the community 
naturally expected that the U.S. attorney would seek the death penalty 
under the Federal statute for such a heinous incident. Myself and 
others were frankly shocked when we learned that the U.S. attorney, in 
her review of the statute, concluded there was not a sufficient 
aggravating factor that would clearly apply though this type of an 
incident.
  Mr. Chairman, the Martini amendment, formerly known as the Death 
Penalty Clarification Act of 1995, H.R. 1811, would simply expand the 
list of aggravating factors in the Federal death penalty statute to 
include situations in which a defendant ``Intentionally kills or 
attempts to kill more than one person in a single criminal episode.''
  My amendment is simply and straightforward. It will simply provide 
Federal prosecutors with the option of pursuing the death penalty in 
cases like the Montclair postal shooting. I would like to restate, it 
would only apply to Federal crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal sends a clear message to the criminal 
that execution-style multiple killings in Federal facilities will not 
go unpunished because of some oversight or loophole in Federal law. It 
is supported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, the leadership, 
and, most importantly, the American people.
  Tragedies like the Montclair postal shooting carry an impact far 
beyond its immediate effect on the victims and their families. Every 
time we are exposed to such a heinous act like this, one more parent is 
reluctant to let their child play outdoors, one more senior citizen 
stays home at night, and one more guard bar goes on our windows and one 
more lock goes on the front door.

[[Page H2189]]

  Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying if you believe that 
execution-style multiple murders should be punishable by the death 
penalty, then you should certainly support this very simple, direct, 
straightforward amendment. The people of Montclair and surrounding 
communities are still trying to heal from last year's tragedy. Let us 
give them part of that healing process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Martini amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment 
forward. It must have a useful purpose besides filling the gap in the 
anti-terrorist legislation. Is this directed at terrorists, sir?
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this is directed at anyone. It could be 
directed at terrorists, or also directed at anyone who in one incident 
were to execute more than one individual.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the 
gentleman, in other words, this is not germane particularly to the 
anti-terrorist legislation. This is a anti-crime measure, is it not?
  Mr. MARTINI. This is certainly directed at that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Now, let us figure out how many times in the Federal 
jurisdiction that the gentleman can remember there have been multiple 
killings or multiple attempted killings in which the gentleman's 
provision, if it became law, would have application? I would yield to 
the gentleman for an answer to that question.
  Mr. MARTINI. If the gentleman will yield enough time for me to answer 
the question?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am yielding for an answer, not a 
lecture.
  Mr. MARTINI. I do not have the number of incidents.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to know. The 
gentleman does not know, and neither do I, but it sounds great.
  I am telling the gentleman one thing: If we ever get somebody that 
fits this description in this amendment, they are going to really get 
it, because the death penalty as an aggravating factor, multiple 
killings or attempted killings, has nothing to do with terrorism, but 
that is really not that important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out as 
I read this amendment, it is not limited to any Federal issue. In the 
last crime bill that this body passed, we made carjacking, whether the 
car went interstate or not interstate, a Federal offense. We made 
drive-by shooting, whether the bullet was fired across State lines or 
not, a Federal offense. Now, apparently under this amendment, we would 
make any multiple killing, manslaughter, any kind of circumstances, a 
Federal offense.
  Where are the people who for so long in this body have been 
advocating for States rights? Where have you gone? This is not an issue 
that ought to be a Federal issue. If we are going to do it for Federal 
offenses, at least limit it to Federal offenses and not State offenses.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  The World Trade Center bombing, which was a terrorist bombing of the 
first impression, killed dozens of people. New York State did not have 
a death penalty. The Federal establishment at that point did not have a 
Federal death penalty, so the gentleman's amendment, had it been in 
place, would have covered that situation to the letter.
  This is an excellent way for the jury to have an extra dimension, 
extra guideline, extra standard against which to weigh the difference 
between a life sentence and the death penalty. Therefore, I would 
support the gentleman's amendment, because it is simply an additional 
tool that the jury of one's peers would have to determine whether or 
not the death penalty should apply.
  Everyone in the world knows when there is a mass killing or multiple 
killing, that that is much worse than a single killing, as sad and 
horrible as that single killing could be. But to mount up the terror 
with three and five and seven killings gives the jury additional weight 
to determine whether or not the death penalty should apply.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it 
plain to the gentleman that what I am complaining about is not the 
Federal offenses, but there is no reason that we ought to say to the 
State of New York, which has their own legislative body and has, based 
on the gentleman's party's proposition, a right as a State to make its 
own laws, that every multiple killing in the State of New York ought to 
carry the death penalty, if the State of New York has made a decision 
of its own that they will have no death penalty in State offenses. That 
is the point that I am making.
  This is way, way too broad, and it is totally inconsistent with the 
philosophies that I have heard espoused from the other side of this 
body consistently during this term of Congress.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just in response to my colleague, first of all this only applies to 
the Federal death penalty statute, and if he read and took the time to 
read the other 15 aggravating factors that would make someone eligible 
for a Federal death penalty as punishment, he would see that there are 
far less aggravating factors than this particular amendment would add 
to it.
  Moreover, the gentleman mentioned where would this apply? This would 
simply apply to an incident that occurred in my district less than a 
year ago in which four people were basically shot down in one incident 
in a postal Federal facility, and under the review by the U.S. Attorney 
at that time in reviewing this statute she felt that that type of an 
incident would not be eligible for consideration of the death penalty 
adding aggravating factors.
  In conclusion, let me just add this. This does not change State law. 
This only affects Federal prosecutions in which there is more than one 
person in the same criminal episode that is actually killed during that 
episode. If my colleague would take the time to read some of the other 
15 aggravating factors, my colleague would see how, in comparison, this 
is certainly a more aggravating factor than the other aggravating 
factors that exist already in the statute.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure 
that everybody understood that this must have been a terrorist attack 
in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] that 
this terrorist bill is designed to take care of.
  Was it, in fact, a terrorist attack as the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] understands it?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I doubt it 
very seriously.
  But may I use the few seconds that I have to gain the attention of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] with whom I worked for many 
years on the Committee on the Judiciary?
  See, New York, I would say to the gentleman, has a death penalty now. 
But the gentleman is living in the past. Sir, I am not going to yield, 
I regret.
  Mr. GEKAS. I thought the gentleman from Michigan was a friend of 
mine. Not that friendly.
  Mr. CONYERS. But the fact of the matter is, sir, that New York does 
now have a death penalty. So if the gentleman's excuse for supporting 
this was because of the past, it is no longer appropriate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H2190]]

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Martini] will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Goss) having assumed the chair Mr. Linder, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2703) to 
combat terrorism, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________