[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.
____________________