[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2247-H2267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). 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 further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 2703.
{time} 1224
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 further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2703) to combat terrorism, with Mr. Linder in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
March 13, 1996, amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 104-480 offered
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] had been disposed of.
The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on
amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
``noes'' prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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 order of the House of Wednesday, March
13, 1996, it is now in order for an additional period of debate on the
amendment.
The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and a Member opposed
each will be recognized for 5 minutes, and then the request for a
recorded vote will be pending.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. HYDE. May I be recognized in opposition, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will be
recognized for 5 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 want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], for joining me as a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no Constitution which protects liberals or
conservatives. It protects every single citizen, it confirms the
concept that democracy is about government of the people, by the
people, and for the people. Habeas corpus confirms the proposition that
our Constitution and democracy is about government of the people, by
the people, and for the people; it is our buffer between ourselves and
the government that we have constituted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
[[Page H2248]]
time to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], and I ask
unanimous consent that she be allowed to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not offer this amendment because I am perfectly
satisfied with the way Federal habeas corpus works now. Far from it. I
think we need reform legislation that moves the death penalty cases
along so that we do not take years to complete them. And my heart goes
out to the victims of these horrible crimes that we heard about during
the debate of this amendment, but the effects of this title are not
limited to death penalty cases. Most of them covered noncapital cases
as well, including cases where citizens were wrongfully prosecuted for
exercising their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. This
provision, the provision in this bill, goes well beyond anything that
would merely speed up the death penalty process. In some cases it
destroys our cherished rights to habeas corpus completely.
I would point out to my colleagues that this title is not the
language passed in the House, H.R. 729. This is the Senate language
and, among other things, it dramatically cuts time limits in half for
habeas corpus filings.
{time} 1230
This limited period could be entirely consumed in the State process,
through no fault of the prisoner or his counsel, resulting in an
absolute ban on filing a petition in Federal court to plead rights
guaranteed under the Constitution overlooked or ignored in the State
court decisions.
Title IX is an attack on article 1, section 9 of our Constitution,
which guarantees, and I quote, ``The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the cases of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it.''
Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are facing an invasion or rebellion.
Title IX also threatens the judicial powers granted under article 3 of
the Constitution. This bill forces the Federal courts to defer to
erroneous State court rulings on Federal constitutional matters. It
also prevents the Federal courts from hearing evidence necessary to
decide Federal constitutional questions by prohibiting evidentiary
hearings in Federal court, and forcing them to defer to previous
judgments made by State courts. This title would violate the oldest
constitutional mission laid out for Federal courts, to stand as a court
of last resort on Federal constitutional issues.
Mr. Chairman, just yesterday I received a letter from a parent whose
child was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. He wrote:
We understand that while habeas corpus may not be a
household word in Oklahoma or anywhere else in America, it is
something for which our founders fought to enshrine in the
Constitution, as the fail-safe, safety net provision that
ensures all our rights and liberties.
This father went on to write:
We have actually learned what is contained in this massive
bill, we know that the last thing our family wants * * * is
for this legislation--so crippling of Americans'
constitutional liberties--to be passed in our daughter's name
and memory. Julie certainly would not want this. And we, and
all Americans, have already been terrorized more than enough;
we do not need this legislation to terrorize us still further
by taking from us our constitutional freedoms.
Mr. Chairman, it was Benjamin Franklin who once said, ``They that can
give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.'' Mr. Chairman, I believe the American
people want and deserve freedom. Americans love their liberty. They did
not elect us to take away their liberty.
Mr. Chairman, while I very much appreciate those who put this bill
together, and I respect them very deeply, I do feel that this is a
problem that we must correct, because it will not just affect the death
row inmates. It will affect everyone who is brought before a State
court, and whose Federal constitutional rights that have been
guaranteed under the Constitution will be violated.
Hon. Helen Chenoweth,
Representative, Idaho,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Melvin Watt,
Representative, North Carolina,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: I understand you have offered an
amendment to strike the habeas corpus package from the bill
you are being called to vote upon today. I am sorry I missed
you when I was in Washington briefly last week.
As the father of someone murdered by the Oklahoma City
bomb, I want to thank you for offering your wise amendment,
and tell you about my and my family's horror that Congress is
contemplating passing a bill such as the one you will be
called upon to vote on this week, a so-called ``effective
death penalty and antiterrorism'' bill.
We have actually learned what is contained in this massive
bill, we know that the last thing our family wants (and Julie
was my precious 23 year, only daughter and my best friend) is
for this legislation so crippling of Americans'
constitutional liberties to be passed in her name and memory.
Julie certainly would not want this. And we, and all
Americans, have already been terrorized more than enough; we
do not need this legislation to terrorize us still further by
taking from us our constitutional freedoms.
I find it telling that I, like the other family members in
Oklahoma City, was approached very early in my grief by
people asking: ``would you be in favor of anti-terrorism
legislation.'' No explanation was given as to what such
legislation would look like, or what it would do to our
fundamental rights. In the throes of my loss, and with such
an abstract concept presented about the bill, as you might
imagine my response was like that of so many other family
members who were brought here last week to be used as
advocates for this bill I am sure they still do not
understand: ``Of course, anything to combat such horrible
acts as the one which took my Julie from me.''
Only a few weeks ago did I learn from my niece, who just
happens to be a lawyer capable of understanding this massive
and technical legislative proposal, what is actually in
this bill.
Moreover, I know personally what legislators must certainly
know, from the mouths of federal officials themselves: they
have all the legislative tools they need to fight terrorism
and bring terrorists to justice.
It utterly galls us as a family so devoted to my daughter
that we and our loss is being used as a political football
for politicians eager to posture themselves as ``tough'' on
crime to reap some political advantage, and to do the bidding
of already powerful agencies who have demonstrated their
inability to responsibly exercise the enormous powers they
already possess.
The ``good faith'' wiretap provisions and the habeas reform
provisions in particular are not known or understood by the
families who have been used to lobby on behalf of this bill.
We know that meaningful, independent habeas court review of
unconstitutional convictions is an essential fail-safe device
in our all too human system of justice. And we have learned
that this package of ``reforms'' you are being asked to vote
for would raise hurdles so high to such essential review to
utterly ensure injustices of wrongful conviction will go
unremedied. This is true in all cases, not just life and
death ones. And we consider this a direct threat to us and
our loved ones still living who may well find themselves the
victim of abusive or mistaken law enforcement and prosecutor
conduct and unconstitutional lower court decisions. Two
wrongs have never made a right.
We understand that while habeas corpus may not be a
household word, in Oklahoma or anywhere else in America, it
is something for which our founders fought to enshrine in the
Constitution as the fail-safe, safety net provision that
ensures all of our rights and liberties--including the First,
Second, Fourth, and all of the other precious Amendments and
other parts of the Constitution.
Please forgive such a long letter. But I feel that Julie's
memory and our rights are literally in the balance, and in
your hands and the hands of your colleagues.
You have our wholehearted gratitude for standing firm
against this bill, which I understand only has a much worse
Senate companion awaiting it should it pass the House. I
continue to educate other family members here about this
terrible bill and why they really cannot want Congress to
pass this bill, if only they know what is in it. (One family
member even told me recently that she understood habeas
corpus to be an anti-terrorism investigation tool!) I pray
you will continue your efforts to educate your colleagues in
the same way. And I hope you will share this letter with your
many colleagues whom we simply could not visit in our limited
time in Washington.
Sincerely,
Bud Welch.
On behalf of Julie Welch and the surviving Welch/Burton
family of Oklahoma City.
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, there is no one in this House for whom I have
more respect and admiration than the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs.
Chenoweth]. I certainly have enormous
[[Page H2249]]
respect for the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] as well. But I
must strenuously resist the motion that is before the House.
Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the same bill that passed the Senate. I
do not think it is ungenerous to remind the gentlewoman that she signed
the contract for America. In fact, her signature is the 11th one from
the top on page 172. Part of that undertaking, that solemn undertaking,
was habeas corpus reform. That is what we have here today.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, please do not think that those of us
advocating something that the Republican Party, and discerning
Democrats, have advocated for 10 years, to my knowledge, habeas corpus
reform, in any way demeans or derogates our respect for and love and
dedication to the Constitution. It is the abuse of the writ of habeas
corpus that we direct our legislation toward, not its uses, its proper
uses.
Mr. Chairman, what do we ask? What is this terrible, tyrannical,
oppressive reform that we are trying to saddle on all these innocent
people who have been convicted of crimes that range up to the death
penalty or less? First of all, we require that all claims be brought in
a single petition. The time limit, not ad infinitum, indefinitely, into
the next millennium, is 1 year after the Supreme Court of the United
States has rejected a direct appeal, however long that takes.
Subsequent petitions for habeas will be allowed if the convicted
defendant can show cause for not including the particular new claim he
is filing in his first petition.
Government suppression of evidence or newly discovered evidence
proving innocence are grounds for a new appeal. That is not very
tyrannical. Deference is given to State courts' legal decisions if they
are not contrary to established Supreme Court precedent. That is to
avoid relitigating endlessly the same issues. There is a system of
State courts. We give them deference, provided their decisions are not
contrary to Supreme Court precedent.
A prisoner, a convicted person, can rebut a presumption by clear and
convincing evidence. Today the average time of habeas corpus closure is
about 10 years. The families of the victims are the forgotten people in
this situation. John Wayne Gacy, Members must be sick of hearing his
name, I see his face, because I represented where he lived and where
they found 27 bodies buried in his house: 14 years and 52 separate
appeals. My God, what an outrage that is.
There are many cases like that. William Bonan, 16 years, guilt never
in doubt; Kermit Smith, 14 years. From the time he was sentenced until
he was executed, 46 different judges considered his case, and it went
to the Supreme Court five different times.
Mr. Chairman, habeas corpus is one of the most important bulwarks we
have in our Constitution protecting people from an overreaching
government, but we cannot tolerate the abuse. We must think of justice
which, if it is delayed, is justice denied. We have been moving toward
reforming, not extirpating, not deforming, reforming habeas corpus, so
justice, justice, justice, might be done, not only to the convicted
accused, who has gone up the State system, up the Federal system, and
back again, but to the families of the victims.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge Members to reject the
amendment of the gentleman and the gentlewoman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I just wanted to accept as
debatable the reasons that the gentleman has advanced, but to suggest
that because the gentlewoman signed a Contract With America she was
irrevocably bound in matters of this manner I think is taking the case
too far.
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 283, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 64]
AYES--135
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Calvert
Campbell
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Crapo
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dornan
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--283
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Weldon (FL)
[[Page H2250]]
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--13
Archer
Chapman
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Cremeans
de la Garza
Durbin
Franks (NJ)
Menendez
Moakley
Stokes
Watts (OK)
Wilson
{time} 1256
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. Watts of Oklahoma against.
Messrs. HERGER, BARCIA, and SMITH of Texas changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, MINGE, and POMEROY changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 64. I was
detained unavoidably. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed
in House Report 104-480.
Amemdment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Conyers:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Crimes Associated With
Terrorism Act of 1996''.
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 against children.
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.
TITLE II--INCREASED PENALTIES
Sec. 201. Penalties 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 an explosive material
knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of
violence.
TITLE III--INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS
Sec. 301. Study of tagging explosive materials, detection of explosives
and explosive materials, rendering explosive components
inert, and imposing controls of precursors of explosives.
Sec. 302. Requirement to preserve record evidence.
Sec. 303. Detention hearing.
Sec. 304. Reward authority of the Attorney General.
Sec. 305. Protection of Federal Government buildings in the District of
Columbia.
Sec. 306. 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--REMOVAL PROCEDURES FOR ALIEN TERRORISTS
Sec. 601. Removal procedures for alien terrorists.
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. Compilation of statistics relating to intimidation of
government employees.
Sec. 805. Victim restitution Act.
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.--The 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 this section as a terrorist
organization shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.
``(b) Terrorist Organization Defined.--
``(1) Designation.--For purposes of this section and the
Crimes Associated With Terrorism Act of 1996 and title V of
the Immigration and Nationality 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.
``(2) 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 the basis for designation. The Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
create an administrative record prior to such designation and
may use classified information in making such a designation.
Such classified information is not subject to disclosure so
long as it remains classified, except as provided in
paragraph (3) for the purposes of judicial review of such
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 paragraph.
``(3) Judicial review.--Any organization designated as a
terrorist organization under the preceding provisions of this
subsection may, not later than 30 days after the date of the
designation, seek judicial review thereof in any United
States Court of Appeals of competent jurisdiction. 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,
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, contrary to
constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity, or not
in accord with the procedures required by law. Such review
shall proceed in an expedited manner. Designated
organizations shall have the opportunity to call witnesses
and present evidence in rebuttal of such designation. During
the pendency of the court's review of the designation, the
prohibition against providing material support to the
organization under this section shall not apply unless the
court finds that the Government is likely to succeed on the
merits of the designation. For the purposes of this section,
any classified
[[Page H2251]]
information used in making the designation shall be
considered by the court, and provided to the organization,
under the procedures provided under title V of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
``(4) Congressional authority to remove designation.--The
Congress reserves the authority to remove, by law, the
designation of an organization as a terrorist organization
under this subsection.
``(5) Sunset.--Subject to paragraph (4), the designation
under this subsection 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 subsection for designation of the
organization.
``(6) 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.
``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the term--
``(1) `material support or resources' has the meaning given
that term in section 2339A of this title; and
``(2) `terrorist activity' means any act 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,
2331(1)(A), 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.''.
(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 2339a 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, 81, 175, 351, 844(f) or (i), 956, 1114, 1116, 1203,
1361, 1363, 1751, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, or 2340 of
this title or section 46502 or 6012 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 AGAINST CHILDREN.
(a) Offense.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 2332a the following:
``Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism against children
``(a) Prohibited Acts.--
``(a) Whoever intentionally commits a Federal crime of
terrorism against a child, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both. This
section does not prevent the imposition of any more severe
penalty which may be provided for the same conduct by another
provision of Federal law.
``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
``(1) 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; and
``(2) the term `child' means an individual who has not
attained the age of 18 years.''.
(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 against children.''.
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.''.
[[Page H2252]]
(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
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.''.
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 2332c (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.''.
TITLE II--INCREASED PENALTIES
SEC. 201. PENALTIES 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 more
than 45 years; and
[[Page H2253]]
``(3) if death results to any person other than the
offender, the offender shall be subject to imprisonment for
any term of years, 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 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 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 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.''.
TITLE III--INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS
SEC. 301. 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 Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with other Federal, State and local officials with expertise
in this area and such other individuals as the Secretary of
the Treasury 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 Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report that contains the results of the study
required by this section. The Secretary shall make the report
available to the public.
(c) Limitation.--The study under this section shall not
include black powder or smokeless powder among the explosive
materials it concerns.
SEC. 302. 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. 303. 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. 304. 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. 305. 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. 306. 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;'';
[[Page H2254]]
(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 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--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.
``Sec. 503. Application for initiation of special removal proceeding.
``Sec. 504. Consideration of application.
``Sec. 505. Special removal hearings.
``Sec. 506. Appeals.'';
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 removal court' means the court
established under section 502(a).
``(5) The term `special removal hearing' means a hearing
under section 505.
[[Page H2255]]
``(6) The term `special removal proceeding' means a
proceeding under this title.
``establishment of special removal court
``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.
``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.
``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.--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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(e) Treatment of Classified Information.--The judge shall
examine in camera and ex parte any item of classified
information for which the Attorney General determines that
public disclosure would pose a risk to the national security
of the United States. With respect to such evidence, the
Attorney General shall also submit to the court a summary
prepared in accordance with subsection (f).
``(f) Summary of Classified Information.--
``(1) The information submitted under subsection (e) shall
contain a summary of the information that does not pose a
risk to the national security.
``(2) The judge shall approve the summary if the judge
finds that the summary will provide the alien with
substantially the same ability to make his defense as would
disclosure of the specific classified information.
``(3) The Attorney General shall cause to be delivered to
the alien a copy of the summary approved under paragraph (2).
``(g) Determination of Deportation.--If the judge
determines that the summary described in subsection (f) will
provide the alien with substantially the same ability to make
his defense as would the disclosure of the specific
classified evidence, a determination of deportation may be
made on the basis of the summary and any other evidence
entered in the public record and to which the alien has been
given access. If the judge does not approve the summary, a
determination of deportation may be made on the basis of any
other evidence entered in the public record and to which the
alien has been given access. In either case, such a
determination will be made when the Attorney General proves,
by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that the alien
is subject to deportation because such alien is an alien as
described in section 241(a)(4)(B).
``appeals
``Sec. 506. (a) Appeals by Alien.--The alien may appeal a
determination under section 505(f) or 505(g) to the United
States Court of Appeals for the circuit where the alien
resides by filing a notice of appeal with such court not
later than 30 days after the determination is made.
``(b) Appeals by the United States.--The Attorney General
may appeal a determination made under section 504, or section
505(f) or 505(g) to the Court of Appeals for the circuit
where the alien resides, by filing a notice of appeal with
such court not later than 20 days after the determination is
made under any one of such subsections.
``(c) Transmittal of Classified Information.--When
requested by the Attorney General, the classified information
in section
[[Page H2256]]
506(e) shall be transmitted to the court of appeals under
seal.''.
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
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
``(B) 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. 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.
(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. 805. VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT.
(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'';
[[Page H2257]]
(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
(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.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
{time} 1300
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we now are down to one antiterrorist crime bill before
this body, and that is the one that is now before us in the form of
substitute brought forth by myself, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Nadler], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], both members
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
I say that we are down to one, because the Committee on the Judiciary
reported out a bill that the majority supported, and many of us had an
alternative view. As of yesterday afternoon we are now down to one
antiterrorist bill, and that is the substitute offered by myself, the
gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from California.
What else remains is a low-grade crime bill, cats and dogs from the
Committee on the Judiciary that have been pasted together, commissions,
blue-ribbon, at hat, and other things that have nothing to do with
fighting terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, what we have now is the only antiterrorist bill before
the House of Representatives in the form of a substitute. We have, in
addition to many groups that have already been with us, the American
Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, we had the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Nadler], who is a cosponsor of the substitute.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, some of us were opposed to the Hyde bill,
as originally written, the Hyde-Barr bill, because although we shared
the goal of opposing terrorism, we shared the goal of stopping
fundraising for terrorist organizations, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, in
the United States, we shared the goal of expeditiously deporting aliens
engaged in terrorism, we were very concerned about what we perceived
and believed to be the overbroad nature of the bill that would
[[Page H2258]]
enhance the power of the Federal Government and decrease the civil
liberties of law-abiding American citizens.
Many of the provisions of the Barr amendment that passed yesterday
took out the provisions that concerned us. But, in my opinion, the Barr
amendment went somewhat too far in that it took out the provisions that
deal with terrorism. It took out the provisions that say you cannot
raise funds in the United States for terrorist organizations abroad,
and it took out the provision that enables the expeditious deportation
of alien terrorists.
The substitute that we have here today agrees with the Barr amendment
in removing from the bill all the provisions that the Barr amendment
removes with respect to wiretapping, enhanced power for the FBI, and so
forth. But it restores the two key antiterrorist provisions, albeit
with greater protections for civil liberties than in the Hyde
amendment.
Specifically, it restores the provision that says you cannot raise
funds for terrorist organizations. It provides civil liberties
protection in that it gives a meaningful judicial review to an
organization that says we are not a terrorist organization even if the
Secretary of State thinks we are. It enables that organization to have
a hearing in court, an expedited hearing. It gives them the right to
bring in their own evidence, their own witnesses to rebut what the
Secretary of State says. It gives them proper due process.
It restores the provision, unlike the original bill, it restores the
provision that says that we will have an expedited proceeding, too, for
the alien terrorists. But it gives that alleged alien terrorist more
due process than the original bill. It says if the Government wants to
use secret evidence against that person, it can do so only if a court
agrees that it is giving the accused a summary of that evidence of
sufficient detail to enable him to prepare a defense as good as if he
had the evidence itself revealed to him. And if the Government thinks
it cannot do that, it is too dangerous to reveal even a summary, then
it cannot use the evidence; the same provisions as in the existing
Classified Information Procedure Act, which we use with respect to
spies and espionage and organized crime.
The same balance is struck for civil liberties and for the right of
the prosecution. With those two provisions restored and with proper
civil liberties provisions, we have a decent bill. The choice, for
Members, is now very clear: If you want an antiterrorist bill that
actually targets the antiterrorist activity, you must support the
Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute. If you want to stop terrorist
organizations from raising funds in the United States in order to carry
out acts of cruel and cowardly terrorism throughout the world, you must
support the Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute.
If you want to give the Federal Government support the ability to get
alien terrorists out of the country expeditiously, you must support the
Conyers-Berman-Nadler substitute. If you voted for the Barr amendment
yesterday because you were concerned about the rights of individual
law-abiding individual Americans, concerned about the unchecked power
of big government, you must vote for the Conyers-Nadler-Berman
substitute. To protect those rights and finish the job of cleaning up
the bill.
Our President, Mr. Chairman, is in the Middle East today pledging
this Nation to take the lead in the worldwide fight against terrorism.
He is pledging our resources, our experience, and most of all our
commitment and our leadership. This House cannot, on the very same day,
say, sorry, we cannot be bothered.
It is a disgrace. It is a betrayal at the very moment that the
civilized world is facing a truly monumental challenge. Terrorism knows
no borders, and our response must similarly be as broad and tough as
the situation demands.
This bill, as amended yesterday, does not do the job. It is no longer
an antiterrorism bill. It no longer even pretends to stop groups like
Hamas or Hezbollah from raising funds in the United States. It no
longer gives us the ability to get alien terrorists out of the country
expeditiously. It no longer gives us the ability to get alien
terrorists out of the country expeditiously.
The organizations that have worked so hard to move forward the fight
against terrorism agree and are supporting this substitute.
Mr. Chairman, when a bomb goes off and kills children in Jerusalem,
the return address should not be the United States. When a militant
terrorist like Sheik Rakhman tries to blow up the World Trade Center
and plot assassinations in our streets, our Government needs the tools
to throw him out of the country.
We need to respect civil liberties and of individual rights. While
the Hyde-Barr bill went too far in the other direction, trampling on
the rights of individuals, the Barr amendment goes too far in the other
direction, cutting or eliminating the key antiterrorist provisions.
For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I say we may have
disagreed on this or that provision but if you supported the Barr
amendment because you were concerned about civil liberties, look at
this amendment carefully, because every concern, every concern
addressed by the Barr amendment is addressed in our substitute.
If you voted against the Barr amendment, our substitute achieves the
law enforcement goals in terms of antiterrorism that you wanted. We can
achieve results without sacrificing the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Let us not turn our backs on the opportunity to enact legislation that
will fight terrorism at its core.
The American people want an antiterrorism bill. The Barr amendment is
not an antiterrorism bill. If we pass up this opportunity to stand up
to the terrorists, we will have failed today, and that would be nothing
less than shameful.
I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute
and not to give up the fight against terrorism.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. I just want to tell you that that statement combines all
of our work for months on the committee, and it effectively recaptures
what went on on the floor yesterday and gives everyone a chance to come
back together on this antiterrorist bill.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I certainly agree. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I take it the gentleman believes the death
penalty is a proper circumstance with which a jury should grapple in a
terrorism case. Is that correct?
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I do not believe----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]. Perhaps they can carry on this
fascinating colloquy.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, support of the Conyers-Nadler-Berman
amendment is opposition to the imposition of the death penalty in cases
of terrorism. The World Trade Center fiasco that took so many lives and
cost so much money and created so much havoc would be beyond the reach
of American citizens sitting as a jury to determine whether or not a
death penalty should apply. In fact, there was no death penalty at the
time of the World Trade Center tragedy, neither on the Federal level or
on the State level.
At any rate, if we vote for this amendment, we eviscerate habeas
corpus reforms that we on this side of the aisle are trying to impose
so that the death penalty, which is approved by the American people by
an 80-percent margin, will also be complemented by a swift execution,
using that word wisely, a swift execution of the sentence.
We need deterrence. Deterrence can only be accomplished by a swift
carrying out of the sentence. The people on death row should be given
one chance and one chance alone, not 11 years' worth of chances to
fight their death sentence, and after that, justice must prevail.
A jury, remember, has found that individual guilty of tragic,
heinous, horrible crimes, killed people, and now he seeks mercy while
we seek justice. We need to defeat the Conyers-Nadler-Berman measure
and revert to the reforms that we have in the main bill, which
[[Page H2259]]
will allow a just finalization of a death sentence.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the habeas corpus
provisions. The fact of the matter is, as I recall, we already passed
that bill on the floor of this House. I disapproved of it, but it is a
separate debate, a separate question. What is involved in this
amendment, what is involved in this amendment is doing what the
terrorism bill, to have a provision, the most important thing, inviting
terrorism, which is to stop the fundraising here of terrorist groups.
The habeas corpus bill passed in a different bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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 thank the chairman for yielding time to
me.
I think that the gentleman from New York has made a significant
contribution by this amendment. I do not question he has worked very
hard on it.
There are parts of this with which I agree and I agree very strongly,
such as those parts that try to correct what I think were mistakes that
were made, probably without knowledge or intent, yesterday by some of
our colleagues in voting to change provisions that effectively nullify
the ability to eliminate fundraising by terrorist organizations in the
United States. I certainly commend the gentleman for the efforts to try
to resurrect it.
However, I must oppose the amendment because I believe that we do
need in this legislation to use the terrorism bill, the bill that we
call now the death penalty bill, in order to finally get to the
President's desk an effective death penalty provision; that is, a
provision that will at long last finally provide that relief so that we
do not have these seemingly endless appeals that death row inmates
have.
That is as equally important to the question of terrorists and
terrorism and fighting terrorism as it is to the general populace for
other types of crimes, in fact, may be even more important in this
area. We need to send a message that when you commit a terrorist act in
this country, you are really going to get the death penalty for doing
it and that, in fact, you are going to have that carried out in a
reasonably short period of time so that there is an effective message
being sent, one that says when you do it, it is going to happen, one
that is with swiftness and certainty of punishment, which is the basic
structure of deterrence in criminal justice.
That is why I think the habeas corpus provisions that the gentleman
would not provide for, among other things that he omits from this
proposed substitute, are critical to this legislation and why I cannot
support this particular alternative amendment, even though I do find
features about it that I concur with.
{time} 1315
I find that we sometimes do not recognize the fact that terrorists
committing those kind of acts commit the most grievous kind of crime.
And if they are committing them against American citizens, if they are
bringing acts over here such, as the World Trade Center, and we know of
a number of others that have been tried but have not been publicized,
because, thank goodness, they were stopped by our law enforcement
community before they happened, when we have those kind of acts, there
is noting that is more important to be deterred than that kind of
activity.
Now, it may not deter, having the death penalty, an effective death
penalty, everybody who wants to come in here and commit some major act,
for a group who are a messianic totalitarian movement, such as I think
the radical Muslim elements are in Iran and the Sudan. But it might
deter some people who might be otherwise aid and abet and help them
become part of that here, and it might be an important message to send
to governments and other people in the world.
So I think having the habeas corpus reforms, the reforms that say
finally at long last we are going to provide for limited opportunity to
go into Federal court after you have exhausted all of your regular
appeals from a death penalty case, and provide in one bite at the apple
and only one bite at the apple the chance to raise all of your
procedural concerns over the case that you were tried under in the
death penalty situation, where at one bite of the apple you get the
opportunity to raise the question of whether you had a good attorney or
not, whether you had the jury property selected or whether there were
other constitutional defects, I think where if we can just give that
one bite at the apple, which this provision in the bill today does in
our habeas corpus reforms, we can then have a fair procedure, one that
gives due process to everybody who is convicted and sentenced to death,
and, at the same time, provides a truly effective death penalty that
puts swiftness and certainty of punishment back in and deterrence into
the criminal justice system in this area.
I believe it must be part of this bill, because it is the only
vehicle we have reasonably available now that we think can go through
the other body, go to the President's desk, and get it signed into law.
The gentleman strikes the criminal alien provisions in this bill, and
those are also important to the terrorist issue, because often times we
find that terrorists or would-be terrorists are criminal aliens and we
are not deporting them in a proper fashion. We do not have the right
procedures for that. They are allowed to stick around here a long time.
The sooner we get them out of the country, the better procedures we
have for that, the less likely we are to have that element in this
country either create the actual acts of terrorism or directing them in
some manner. We need to kick these people out of the country and have
the procedures to do that. The gentleman in his substitute does not
provide for the criminal alien provisions for criminal alien
deportation that are in the underlying bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I again
must oppose this substitute, saying that there are features in it I
concur in, but two major provisions are eliminated. I must say vote no
on this substitute.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], the ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I think every one of us
as we drove home last night were absolutely shaken by what we heard
happened in Scotland. I think if you look at the world's newspapers,
you will find the entire world was shaken by that.
Now, at this moment it appears that was not a terrorist, just
somebody who was crazy. But I have got to tell you that every terrorist
on the planet had to look at that and think, aha, if you go after
children, this is really something.
I would say to Members of this Chamber, if you do not do anything
else, vote for this amendment on just the basis that we say in here
acts of terrorism against children are going to have a much higher
penalty. I think that is a very important provision in this. We ought
to say after Scotland today, and say it loud and say it clear, that the
whole globe ought to reach together to protect its children against any
idiot terrorist that might be thinking this is a way to get a nation's
attention, because we say yesterday how that brings everyone to their
knees.
Now, this substitute I also think says some very important things.
You know, we all get shaken and angered by terrorists, and the issue is
we cannot stampede the Constitution at the same time. Very often I have
disputes with the gentleman from Illinois who is the chairman of this
committee. But he was eloquent on the floor yesterday, eloquent,
talking about the fact that if we do not at least do this, we may as
well forget this and call it the pro-terrorist or terrorist status quo
act, because we have gutted the things that have to do with fighting
terrorism in here.
You hear it all goes off to habeas corpus. That was another issue, in
another bill. We dealt with it on this floor. This is about terrorism,
and are we going to get serious or not.
[[Page H2260]]
When I hear people saying they do not trust the American Government,
they do not trust the FBI, they do not trust the State Department, no.
We are Americans, we should not totally trust anything. But this bill
has the balance. If the State Department makes up a designation of
terrorist associations, that has the right to judicial review. We have
the balance in there. If we do not have this, we are denied the right
to even know what they are.
It says in here that if you are contributing money to a terrorist
group, an international terrorist group, you will not be held
accountable unless we know you knew it was a terrorist group. But at
least that stops some of it. That is the kind of common sense this bill
makes. And for any American citizen to say you cannot have a balance
between terrorism and the Constitution, that is wrong. If we cannot be
tough on terrorism, and yet do we have to yank away everybody's
constitutional rights? I do not think so.
But I must say, put all of that aside and at least, if nothing else,
you ought to vote for this for section 104. Because it we cannot stand
up and speak against terrorism against children and say that will not
be tolerated, we have lost the whole message.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentlewoman
from Colorado say that the death penalty is another issue; we do not
need to deal with the death penalty in this year. The death penalty is
the essence of this bill. In fact, the name of the bill is the
Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act.
Why then should we amend the Effective Death Penalty and Public
Safety Act to take out the death penalty, to gut the death penalty
provisions? We might then just call this gutted bill the ``no more
death penalty act.''
In California we have had only three executions of convicted first
degree murderers since the 1960's. One of those three convictions was
of a man named Robert Alton Harris. Earlier last year I came to the
floor with what I called the Robert Alton Harris bill. It was approved
by an enormous bipartisan majority of this House. The purpose of this
substitute would be to gut the bill of those provisions that would give
us an effective death penalty.
President Bill Clinton supports the provisions that this substitute
would strike out. Let me read from what the President said recently on
television.
Bill Clinton said:
In death penalty cases, it normally takes eight years to
exhaust the appeals. It is ridiculous. If you have multiple
convictions, it could take even longer. So there is a strong
sense in the Congress I think among Members of both parties
that we need to get down to sort of one clear appeal. We need
to cut the time delay on the appeals dramatically. And it
ought to be done in the context of this terrorism
legislation, so that it would apply to any prosecutions
brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma. I think it ought
to be done.
So said President Clinton.
Those who say that the death penalty has no place in this bill, it is
another issue, and want us to pass this substitute to gut the bill, are
just wrong. There is a big bipartisan majority in this House in favor
of the provisions. We voted before strongly in their support. Let us do
it again. Let us defeat this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I am sorry to take a minute. I am sorry the gentleman would not
yield. This provision on habeas corpus that I was talking about was not
even in the bill when it left the Committee on the Judiciary. I find it
interesting that people now come to the floor and say this was the gut
of the bill. If this was the core of the bill, somebody forgot to tell
the Committee on the Judiciary, because it was not in the bill when it
left the Committee on the Judiciary.
The part that was in the bill when it left the Committee on the
Judiciary is now gone, because the NRA said: No, no, no, that is too
strong. We cannot have the Federal Government looking at the militia
groups and do that. We do not trust the Federal Government. Take all
those things out.
All of a sudden this has now become habeas corpus reform. The
President is right. There should be habeas corpus reform. I agree with
that. Many of us agree with that. We do not say totally gut it and we
say do not put habeas corpus reform in and call that a terrorism bill.
Let us be really clear about this. I think that that is the issue,
and that is what we are trying to say. Let us be perfectly clear and
let us not try to clutter this up. What this is doing is leaving
terrorism unchecked and not giving them authority that the President
asked for.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Schumer], former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, unfortunately. I
say unfortunately because this would not be, frankly, my ideal
amendment in terms of fighting terrorism. I do not think it is strong
enough. I much preferred the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois.
So why would I rise in support of this amendment? Very simply,
because now we are faced with a choice of a rather diluted, mild
amendment, and nothing at all.
This is such an unfortunate day in this body. I find it amazing that
our President is over in the Middle East with all the world leaders
negotiating to toughen up the world response to terrorism, and last
night this body pulled the rug out from under him by supporting the
Barr amendment.
I find it utterly amazing that the Hamas has found a new best friend
in America, the NRA, and anyone who went along with this horrible
amendment.
There is no question in my mind that the Hyde amendment was balanced,
and it was fair, and it would do the job. The Conyers-Nadler amendment
is, in my judgment, not as good. I find myself in the position of
opposing it yesterday because we had a good, strong bill, and now
supporting it today because there is nothing else.
Mr. Chairman, when we look at why people are frustrated with
Congress, when we look at what is wrong with this body, here it is: 98
percent of America says do something real about terrorism. Do something
real, because you do not need to be a genius. With great common sense
they have seen what happened at the World Trade Center, they have seen
what happened in Oklahoma City. They realize that both internationally
and domestically the world has changed. And because of one interest
group that has so many Members in this body quaking in their boots,
there was a 180-degree reversal.
Mr. Chairman, I want to pay my respects, first, to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. They did what they believed
was right. They are moving forward in a way I disagree with, but in a
way that had integrity.
I want to pay my respects to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde],
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Heineman], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest],
and so many of the others who had the courage to vote ``no'' yesterday
on the Barr amendment.
But for the general outcome in this body today, I can think of
nothing short of the word disgraceful. I just wish that every Member
who voted for the amendment, the Barr amendment, which truly
eviscerated this bill, has to live with the consequences. I hope they
do not. I hope there is nothing that will make them doubt what they
did. But, unfortunately, knowing what I know about terrorism in America
from my briefings and research, the terrorist danger in America, I am
afraid they will all have to.
This is not a great day for this House of Representatives. This is
not a great day for the future of this country. If we cannot all pull
together, if we cannot avoid the forces of the far right and the far
left pulling us apart, then we cannot be the greatest country in the
world in the 21st century.
So I support the Conyers-Nadler amendment, albeit reluctantly and
unfortunately, because it is the only thing we have left.
[[Page H2261]]
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
bill and would adopt the comments of the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum], also.
I think, on balance, what persuades me to vote against this amendment
is the fact that the death penalty, the habeas corpus reform, is not
included in that particular amendment. The operative word in this bill,
in the title of this act, I believe, is the word ``effective.'' The
complete name is the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act.
Mr. Chairman, the operative word is ``effective.'' We have a death
penalty right now in this country, but it is not used very effectively,
and not sufficiently, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]
said, to act as a deterrent to people who might commit these types of
crimes, even crimes that would be similar to what occurred in Scotland
yesterday against these children.
{time} 1300
These types of people, if convicted, need to face the death penalty,
and it needs to be an effective death penalty, not one where they can
drag out the process for 8 years, or 10 years, for 17 years or longer.
They need to have swift justice to be an effective deterrent. And what
the habeas corpus, the death penalty reforms that are included in this
core bill, that are still in that bill, what they provide for, among
other things, that would accomplish a effective death penalty in this
case, include establishing a 1-year limitation in which they can file.
The convicted, the person who has already been through the jury trial
and been convicted, it gives them a year to file a habeas corpus
petition, not years and years and years like the present law allows,
and it prohibits Federal judges who consider these petitions for habeas
corpus death penalty relief, it prohibits them from considering them
unless they were filed by a person convicted in a State court and that
person has exhausted their remedies.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by simply adding that we need
this in this bill, and to vote for the amendment would take out the
effective death penalty provisions we need so much in this reform, and
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman], one of the gentlemen who helped develop the
Conyers-Nadler substitute, and therefore this measure is entitled the
Conyers-Nadler-Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I voted to report the original Hyde bill out of
committee. I have trouble with some of the provisions in the bill, but
I emphatically believe that a compelling case has been made that
Federal law enforcement agencies need to be granted expanded means to
attack the scourge of terrorism, both international and domestic.
I believe that our freedoms as well as those enjoyed by the citizens
of other democratic nations cannot survive if we do not create new
tools to apprehend and punish those who committed crimes with the
intent of intimidating, coercing, or retaliating against government
conduct. Our ultimate objective must be, of course, to prevent such
crimes from being committed in the first place. The most recent
appalling attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv only reinforce my deeply
held conviction that our democratic Government must be given new means
to fight international and domestic terrorism.
But the bill before us today is not the bill I voted for in the
Committee on the Judiciary. First of all, the Republican majority
decided to jam into this bill, in the name of fighting terrorism, their
long-sought objective of, for all intents and purposes, abolishing the
ancient writ of habeas corpus. Former Attorneys General Levi,
Katzenbach, Richardson, Civiletti, each of them has written to us
saying that nothing is more deeply rooted in America's legal traditions
and conscience. The writ of habeas corpus is the guarantor of our
constitutional rights, the bedrock of our Federal system which has
always provided an independent Federal court review of the
constitutionality of State court prosecutions.
Shame on those who invoke the names of innocents slaughtered in
Oklahoma City or Jerusalem in their quest to obliterate the writ of
habeas corpus. I cannot support lawlessness in the police station or
the courtroom anymore than I want to tolerate it in the hands of
terrorists.
The substitute, the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute, deletes the
habeas corpus provisions to which I profoundly object.
In addition, second, we now have the passage of the Barr amendment
which has deleted the very antiterrorism provisions which do belong in
this bill. The Barr amendment deletes the prohibition on fund-raising
for terrorist organizations. And can my colleagues believe this? It
deletes the expedited removal of alien terrorists from this country.
For those who have concerns about some of these provisions, the
answer is not to gut them as the Barr amendment did, but rather to
include and improve them, as Mr. Conyers has done. I want to express my
very deep gratitude to Mr. Conyers for his willingness to include these
provisions in this substitute and for his willingness, with his deep
concern for civil liberties, to balance and apply that in the context
of our need to do more on terrorism.
We provide in this substitute for judicial review of the designation
of an organization as terrorist. We provided for the expedited removal
of alien terrorists under existing procedures for dealing with
classified information which preserve a defendant's right to counsel
and to confront the evidence against him or her.
I also strongly support the provision in the Conyers substitute which
deletes impediments in current law to the ability of Federal law
enforcement organizations to initiate investigations of suspected
material support to terrorists. I believe that the scourge of terrorism
requires a careful recalibration from time to time of the balance
between civil liberties concerns and law enforcement authority.
In this case, I believe that speech on behalf of terrorist
organizations can be, not necessarily are, but they can be, an
indication that the individual is engaged in material support for
terrorist activities. Under certain circumstances I believe it is
appropriate for investigations to be opened, not to be prosecuted for
that speech, not be thrown in jail, but for merely an investigation to
be opened.
I am concerned that the current law bars such investigations unless
the evidence of terrorist activities virtually suffices to commence
prosecution. That means people who should be prosecuted would not be
I have a proud record of support, I believe, for civil liberties.
When the opponents of this legislation and all of its excessive forms
have pointed out potential infringements of civil liberties, I have
listened. As the American Jewish Committee has so eloquently stated,
the war on terrorism must be and can be carried out without undermining
our most fundamental protection. But when these same organizations that
opposed the original bill of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and
supported the Barr amendment go so far as to minimize the very threat
of terrorism itself, they lose all credibility.
Ours is a living constitution which has thrived for two centuries
because in its strengthened vibrancy it has accommodated the realities
of modern American life. One of those realities tragically is
terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Conyers
substitute. It wages war on terrorism while preserving precious
American rights. Should the substitute fail, I will be voting against
H.R. 2703, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, it is kind of deja vu to hear the four Attorneys
General routinely trotted out by the opposition. They have been
referred to as the four horsemen of Swan Lake. But we also have our
retinue of Attorneys General who disagree with them, led by Griffin
[[Page H2262]]
Bell, William Barr, Richard Thornburg, the late William French Smith.
But I have a celebrity to trump all of those Attorneys General on the
subject of habeas corpus, and his name is President Clinton.
Mr. Chairman, he said on June 5 of last year, 2 days before the
Senate passed the identical bill overwhelmingly that we seek to pass in
this legislation; here is what the President, Mr. Clinton, said on
``Larry King Live.'' He said in death penalty cases it normally takes 8
years to exhaust the appeals. It is ridiculous. And, if you have
multiple convictions, it could take even longer. So there is a strong
sense in the Congress, I think among members of both parties, we need
to get down to sort of one clear appeal. We need to cut the time delay
on the appeals dramatically, and that ought to be done in the context
of this terrorism legislation so that it would apply to any
prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma, and I think
this ought to be done.
Now that is the head man. So I just serve warning. Anytime my
colleague brings out Mr. Katzenbach, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Civiletti, and
Mr. Levi, I am going to bring out the President, so just be fairly
warned.
Now I want to make it very clear----
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. Yes, of course.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, that means the gentleman will not be
mentioning these other run-of-the-mill Attorneys General that----
Mr. HYDE. I may do that, although they are not run-of-the-mill, they
are superb legal giants.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that this is still a good bill
despite the Barr amendment yesterday, which disappointed me, but the
bill still is a very good bill and worthy of support. We have habeas
reform. If we can defeat the Nadler-Conyers-Berman amendment that is
offered now, we have victim restitution, we have criminal alien
deportation improvements, we require marking plastic explosives to
allow for more effective detection. If we had that, Pan Am 103 might
well never have occurred. We prohibit the possession, importation, and
sale of nuclear materials, reform asylum laws to stop their
manipulation by foreign terrorists. Not most importantly, but very
importantly, we authorize lawsuits by Americans against foreign nations
responsible for State-sponsored activity. That is amending the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. We provide for the expedited expulsion of
illegal aliens from the United States, yes, and we protect Federal
employees and Federal Government buildings because if someone is
murdered, it becomes a death penalty.
Now the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute is another gutting
amendment. There are----
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. HYDE. I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], I
am just getting wound up, but go ahead. I would rather the gentleman
interrupt me now than later.
Mr. NADLER. Before the gentleman gets into the analysis of the
amendment, I just wanted to ask with what the gentleman said about the
bill, as amended a moment ago, the gentleman said on the floor
yesterday, and I quote: ``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.'' Unquote.
Does the gentleman think that is no longer correct?
Mr. HYDE. Well, yes, that was an overstatement on my part out of the
depths of my dismay that I was losing. But on sober reflection, I think
it is an antiterrorism bill, not as robust as I would like it to be,
but still worthwhile.
Now there are a number of things in the Conyers-Nadler-Berman
substitute that I like and could support. Unfortunately our colleagues
have lumped them together with eliminating habeas corpus reform, and
that, of course, destroys any balance and makes it not worthwhile.
For example, under the Conyers amendment and the amendment of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], current law which would permit
the imposition of the death penalty for somebody who bombed a Federal
building where death resulted, that is rewritten. It cannot be done now
under the Conyers amendment.
Just let me finish my statement. I will yield to the gentleman
shortly.
Now, the Conyers amendment would not impose the death penalty. He has
rewritten this law for someone who uses a biological toxin that results
in another's death. Oh, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
provides a life sentence, but not the death penalty. Now, somebody who
kills somebody using biological toxin certainly qualifies for the death
penalty in my book. Mr. Conyers strikes the criminal alien deportation
improvements, which we have in this bill, we passed those earlier, and
we are repassing them here. They passed 380 to 20 last February. So as
tempting as it is to support the designation of terrorist
organizations, and we should be able to do that, I hope to goodness we
get to do that, I hope we can do that in conference. But that morsel of
good public policy is not worth throwing away habeas corpus reform or
the ability to impose the death penalty on someone who bombs a Federal
building, as they did in Oklahoma City.
{time} 1345
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to make
is the House passed this habeas reform in another context. That bill
has been passed by the House and can stand on its own. We have been
under the impression that this was an antiterrorism bill. I am
surprised that the gentleman is not anxious to get some of the
antiterrorism provisions back into the bill.
Mr. HYDE. I am anxious, but I am not anxious to ever go on record as
rejecting something we have been looking for, for 10 years and working
toward, and that is habeas corpus reform.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I am still puzzled by the gentleman's
unwillingness, and I do not say inability, but unwillingness to see
that habeas corpus law applies to murderous terrorists. They depend on
habeas corpus, an indefinite prolongation of habeas corpus proceedings,
so they never get the sentence executed.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I want to be clear, I have never said habeas is
completely irrelevant to terrorism.
Mr. HYDE. I misconstrued the gentleman. I misconstrued the gentleman.
I humbly apologize.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, still, and will be until the end of the
year.
Mr. HYDE. At least.
Mr. CONYERS. The idea of us now going back into habeas, the gentleman
from North Carolina has just reminded us that we have already passed a
habeas bill overwhelmingly.
Mr. HYDE. Taking my time back, I thought the gentleman had something
new to add to this debate. The gentleman is repeating what the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] said, and he said it better.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, why does the gentleman need to have habeas
here if we have already done it?
Mr. HYDE. To make sure that it passes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Sheila 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 gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for yielding time to me, and I thank the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Berman] for a reasoned response to the reason that I am in the
well of the House.
I would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman
of the committee, there is no doubt of his deep and abiding commitment
to this
[[Page H2263]]
process. I respect his comments yesterday, in fact, of his
disappointment with the passage of the Barr amendment. I think,
frankly, we might have been heading in the right direction.
I think the gentleman realizes that I supported this legislation in
committee, because I have firsthand experience with the tragedy of
terrorism, the loss of life of a member of my community in Pan American
103. I also have grappled over the last 48 hours with the tragedy of
the loss in Scotland, I believe, of some 16 children. It is certainly
not in our jurisdiction, but that is a terrorist act.
If I vote for anything, Mr. Chairman, this time it has to be focused
on the victims. With the passage of the Barr amendment, I feel that we
have severely undermined this so-called terrorist legislation. Mr.
Chairman, we have a situation that cop-killing bullets are still out on
the streets, and we have minimized the study that was to go forward in
not studying the ammunition, which is terrorist in its own sense, to a
certain extent, as it freely flows throughout this Nation. Now we just
simply want to say ``We will look at it if we see a cop being killed.''
The Conyers-Nadler-Berman bill does something that is near and dear.
It adds a provision that cites particularly acts of terrorism against
children, and makes it a specific crime to target children when
engaging in any of the activities that have been included in this
legislation. That is a victim's bill that deals with terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, additionally, it allows an extension of Federal
jurisdiction to cases involving overseas terrorism, to include cases
where a U.S. national was on a plane, or the perpetrator is a U.S.
national, or the offender is subsequently found in the United States,
and cases involving foreign dignitaries.
Mr. Chairman, I know full well what it means to travel overseas, many
of us do, but in particular I work with a youth group who goes overseas
to dangerous areas every summer. I want them to be exposed to this
world, but I also want them to be protected against terrorist acts. The
Nadler-Conyers-Berman legislation that is before us is the right way to
go. Their bill also extends the law regarding weapons of mass
destruction to include threatened use of weapons of mass destruction,
as well as cases involving a U.S. national outside of the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, let me add one more point about victims' rights in this
instance. There is a question when a tragedy happens, how do you
address the grievance. The grievance is that if you survive it, you
either have the opportunity to sue and/or pursue your grievance in a
court of law. This legislation that I am supporting specifies
jurisdiction of U.S. courts over lawsuits brought against terrorists.
Mr. Chairman, Federal courts would lose the power to correct
unconstitutional incarceration. This bill brings with it the increased
risk that innocent persons would be held in prison in violation of the
Constitution and--even executed--because the bill imposes unreasonably
short time limits for filing a claim of habeas corpus relief, limits
almost all petitioners to only one round of Federal review and requires
the petitioner meet an extremely high clear an convincing burden of
proof in order to secure relief. We must punish to the fullest extent
of the law those who commit terrorist acts against our Nation, against
our Nation, against innocent children. However, I equally believe that
we must consider the bill before us and firmly support the
constitutional rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure, due process of law, and the right of
privacy. I have concerns about racial, ethnic, and religious bigotry
that may increase with the misuse of the powers of this bill. These
fundamental rights are essential to our liberty as Americans.
The Conyers-Nadler-Berman bill is the right anti-terrorist
legislation.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
learned gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate being noted as learned,
being a Hoosier, I would say to my fellow Illinois chairman of the
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by the comments of my colleague who was
just in the well. Often we hear about these cop-killer bullets. It is
interesting. I would like to know why. Any bullet out there, no matter
what you call it, if you point it at the right time, can kill someone
with the same lethal effect as a knife or a tire iron, if you want to
whop somebody up side the head. The real assault weapon, Mr. Chairman,
is the thug. That is what the real assault weapon is.
What we have now, Mr. Chairman, are international groups that commit
acts of terror indiscriminately, cowardly acts of terror, who form
these groups throughout the world. They have increased their lethality
in how they operate, so it used to be in the 1970's and 1980's it was
the highjackings and hostage takings. Now they have become more
sophisticated. Now there are bombings, and that is how they operate,
but they are more cowardly in what they do, because the lethality of
their actions now is against the innocents.
So we see, whether it is the World Trade Center bombings and others
that have operated throughout the world, we, the United States, want to
take a responsible role not only here domestically, within our own
borders, but internationally, with our neighbors throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is pretty important.
I am extraordinarily disappointed when we do not give the tools and
the resources to law enforcement to meet those goals. Why we gut a
bill, and for some reason say we should be more frightened of our own
Government; wait a minute, Mr. Chairman. I believe in good government.
Why do we form governments? We form governments to take care of people.
If people are living in fear, there is not freedom. There is not
liberty. That is what we cherish most in our own country.
We want to give the power and authority to the FBI to go after these
thugs, when these illegal aliens come into the country, and then we do
not want to give, whether it is roving wire taps and things to go after
them; why? Then when we do come after them, they flee from the
Philippines to Pakistan, and finally we catch up with them, as in the
World Trade Center case.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman. I do not want to ever say he
is ambivalent, but I noticed the remarks from yesterday and the remarks
from today, to support this bill. I am going to support this bill. When
the Senate has theirs, we are going to go to conference and we are
going to give them the tools necessary to make this an effective bill,
and we will come back to the floor then at that time.
However, let me make a closing comment with regard to this thing
about let us throw out habeas corpus reform and talk about victims'
rights. To me, that just blows my mind. Those who coddle and hug the
thugs do not want to be for an effective death penalty, yet we are
going to talk about victims' rights? We need in this country a good
balance in sentencing guidelines between education, prevention,
restitution, retribution, and deterrence, and the rights to victims are
extraordinarily important.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague, the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
passion on the issue. The whole question of terrorism is, of course, to
prohibit terrorists, but it is to prohibit terrorist acts on victims.
This legislation includes specific language targeted to children. Who
can deny that? This is the better bill, the stronger bill, the Nadler-
Conyers-Berman bill. It actually addresses victims, who are in fact the
recipients of terrorist acts. We cannot deny that.
Mr. BUYER. My only question, Mr. Chairman, is does the gentlewoman
support an effective death penalty?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I have never disagreed with it.
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 begin by throwing away my Chairman
Hyde's remarks of yesterday. He did not mean it. It was a moment of
passion. He was maybe even ticked off, as we say. He said, ``With the
Barr amendment, this is not an antiterrorism bill.'' On reflection
today and maybe talking with the Speaker, what the heck, we have to do
the best with what we have. Were I in his position, maybe I would have
to say the same thing.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H2264]]
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is my experience that in the depths of
disappointment, things sometimes look darker than they really should,
but I feel better today. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. We are delighted to find that the gentleman is moving
right along.
Now, Mr. Chairman, for the law lesson. These have to come on the
Committee on the Judiciary, between lawyers.
All right, class, turn to title 18, U.S.C. 111. What you will find is
that the murder penalty exists for a whole list of crimes. Also, class,
turn to 18 U.S.C. 119, the murder penalty. Also, class, turn to 18
U.S.C., and staffers for Members, turn to that, also, 18 U.S.C. 1117.
The last lesson for the afternoon, turn finally to 18 U.S.C. 1114.
OK. What do these four laws provide? Murder, in the first instance,
willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing will get you the death
penalty, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and my
Republican friends, in the United States of America. It will also,
under the second title I cited, for foreign murder of U.S. nationals,
that will get the death penalty.
You can also get the death penalty--not whether we like it or how we
voted for it, what our philosophy is, this is the law. Conspiracy to
murder will get you the death penalty. Also, the murder of an officer
or employee of the United States, my fourth illustration, will get you
the death penalty.
If Members do not believe the instructor in this class, go to the
current Attorney General of the United States, who explains for
everybody who will not do their homework that the Oklahoma bombers, if
convicted, will get the death penalty.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to tell me, if habeas was so
important, why was it left out of the Hyde-Barr bill when it came to
the floor? The answer is they had antiterrorism on their minds. So we
have, even though my dear friend, the gentleman from Illinois, is
feeling much better today, we still have a baloney sandwich without any
meat in it. We only have the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute to deal
with.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was queried on the House
floor about my beliefs with regard to the death penalty, and I said an
effective death penalty, but the clarification was really meant to
track what the gentleman has just said.
This bill deals with offenses that require the death penalty on
certain offenses dealing with terrorism, which is in the Conyers-Nadler
bill. Habeas is not the death penalty. It is justice. We want to make
sure that for victims of all kinds, we need to have justice. Habeas
does not deal with answering the question of terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask, is that what the gentleman is saying at
this point?
Mr. CONYERS. The assistant law professor from Texas is precisely on
point.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am trying. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let us look at the nature of the people
that we have castigated for months and months that commit these heinous
offenses. Suicide bombers, are they looking for which habeas we are
using and whether it exists, since, as we have just learned now, habeas
has nothing to do with whether the death penalty exists? Habeas is the
protections--constitutional--that are given to you if you are under the
death penalty.
{time} 1400
I do not think so. Members of the other side, I do not think that
suicide bombers care what we do with habeas or what we do not do with
it.
But why let them raise funds in the United States? That is in my
bill. We prevent them from raising funds to get the bombs to blow up
Americans.
Please, we have a very serious, important matter that requires us to
bring our common sense and leave our political partisanship outside the
door. This is an incredibly important matter. I hope that all of us
will recognize that we only have one measure that deals with
antiterrorism, and it is the substitute which we will shortly vote on.
I urge your favorable consideration of this provision.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
am waiting for the Speaker, who would like to close debate, and he
should be here imminently.
Meanwhile, I would like to respond to Professor Conyers, who gave us
an interesting lecture on criminal law, simply to say that his
amendment, section 201, reads, ``whoever damages or destroys or
attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any
person or real property in whole or in part, owned, possessed, used by,
leased to the United States or any department or agency thereof, or any
institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance.''
What is the penalty that the gentleman has inculcated in his
amendment? Not ``shall be in prison for not more than 25 years, or
both,'' but ``if personal injury results to any person other than the
offender, the term of imprisonment shall be not more than 40 years.''
Then, skipping another paragraph and getting to the end game here, ``if
death results to any person other than the offender, the offender shall
be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.''
I do not see the death penalty in here in section 201 of title II. I
see life. If you kill somebody by bombing a Federal building, now the
professor has indicated elsewhere in the code death penalties are
provided for. May well be. I have not thumbed through that part of the
code recently.
But I wonder why he introduced this amendment providing for life
imprisonment if you kill somebody by blowing up a Federal building,
which is what happened in Oklahoma City. The gentleman surely does not
do things idly or without purpose. I suspect the gentleman wants to get
into law his well-known dislike for the death penalty, and I understand
that. That is a perfectly respectable, legitimate position to have, but
it should be noted that his amendment does away with the death penalty
for bombing a Federal building.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman promise to do his
homework after I do this one more time? I mean, suicide bombers do not
care about the Conyers provision or the Hyde provision. Suicide bombers
are not afraid of habeas corpus, sir. They have no concern. The problem
is that these are madmen who do not obey or care about laws.
The reason I cited the gentleman four specific death penalty
amendments is to suggest to him that for all of those reasons, the
Attorney General of the United States is right in telling us that upon
conviction, the Oklahoma bombers will get the death penalty, regardless
of your view or my view on habeas corpus.
Mr. HYDE. Your amendment notwithstanding. Well, I really appreciate
that.
Mr. CONYERS. How will habeas corpus deter a single terrorist act?
Tell me that.
Mr. HYDE. How does what, sir, habeas corpus deter a single terrorist?
Mr. CONYERS. How will habeas corpus of any kind deter a single
terrorist act?
Mr. HYDE. I presume the professor is referring to habeas corpus
reform, because habeas corpus would not deter anybody from anything.
The reform might.
Mr. CONYERS. Well, will reform? Tell me how.
Mr. HYDE. I will leave that to the distinguished Speaker of the
House.
Mr. CONYERS. Who has not heard our debate. Maybe.
Mr. HYDE. But the gentleman knows that sure punishment and swift
punishment is a deterrence, and that is the answer to the gentleman's
question.
Mr. CONYERS. Suicide bombers are afraid of sure and swift deterrence,
right?
Mr. HYDE. I thank the gentleman for his illuminating comment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished Speaker of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
[[Page H2265]]
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois for yielding me the time, and I think that this is a very
important pair of votes that are coming up.
Let us be very clear where we are. There was a very large conference
in the Middle East yesterday in which leaders from all over the world
said they are opposed to terrorism. Political leaders are going to get
up all over the world and say ``We are opposed to terrorism.''
The question is, is there a reasonable and prudent way to both
safeguard individual liberties and at the same time make certain that
we are able to combat terrorism before it does incalculable damage to
innocent people? In addition, are there legitimate and reasonable ways
in a free society to suppress violent crime, and to deal with people
who commit crimes so unspeakable that they have in fact earned the
death penalty by the very barbarity of their behavior?
That is what these votes are really all about. They are about, first
of all, the question is there a prudent and reasoned way for a free
people to govern themselves so they both protect their liberties
against a capricious state, a search which has been going on in the
English-speaking world since the English civil war and the Star
Chambers, and which we have worked on now for over 340 years, and at
the same time, is there a way to make certain that those so barbaric,
those so outside the bounds of civilization, whether acting as an
individual killer or acting as a part of an organized group
deliberately using terror for political purposes, that we as a people
can combat them.
There are two provisions I particularly want to focus on because they
seem to be of some controversy. The first is having an effective,
enforceable death penalty. Let me just say that no citizen who has
looked at some of the barbaric acts committed tragically by Americans
against Americans, at serial murderers, at people who have engaged in
acts of deliberate, vicious, wanton brutality, no citizen who believes
in the death penalty would want to vote against this bill, because
without this bill the death penalty remains ineffective.
In Georgia, our attorney general, Mike Bowers, pointed out that he
was in law school when certain murderers were put on death row, and
because of the current interminable frivolous appeals process, he had
gone through law school, passed the bar exam, been in private practice,
served as a district attorney, in what is now his third term as the
attorney general of Georgia, and these same murderers were still
sitting on death row filing a new appeal.
Clearly justice delayed is justice denied. Clearly the families of
victims who have seen these horrible things done deserve to know that
this society can move effectively.
As somebody who believes in Federalism and allowing the States to
make decisions, when you learn that it is Federal law that blocks the
States having an effective death penalty, it is Federal law which gives
every defense attorney in the country infinite excuses for simply
buying time. In the State of California, there are provisions here that
cost the State over $1 million per person given the death penalty just
having to fight the frivolous lawsuits.
First of all, I would say to my friends, if you want an effective
death penalty, then you want to vote ``no'' on the Conyers substitute
and you want to vote ``yes'' on final passage, and there should be no
mistake about it, because that is the only way to make sure that we get
an effective death penalty.
There is a second part I want to mention. I want to be really clear.
We are wrestling with what, I think, is a very hard problem. How do we
give the Government enough power to protect us without giving the
Government power to coerce, power to invade our liberties? How do we
protect our personal freedoms while at the same time protecting our
personal freedoms? Because that is what we are trying to do. We want to
protect our freedom against the State being capricious and we want to
protect our freedom against terrorists who would destroy our lives.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Conyers substitute and a ``yes''
vote on final passage because I think that this bill has been improved,
and I think when it goes to conference it will be improved even more. I
know that my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, has been working
even today on making specific provisions to find a way to block Hamas
from being able to raise money in the United States while killing
people in Israel.
Let me draw this very clearly. We want to be capable, within our
Constitution and protecting our liberties, to block terrorist groups.
We want to be capable of tracking potential terrorists while protecting
our liberties.
That requires very careful drawing of the lines, because on the one
hand you want to give the FBI, you want to give the Central
Intelligence Agency, you want to give the powers of the state enough
strength to do that which is necessary to protect us. On the other
hand, you do not want to give them the ability in an arbitrary and
inappropriate way to exercise those powers to hurt people.
I want to first of all commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr],
a former U.S. attorney in his own right, a prosecutor, a man who has
had cases where he has brought people to justice who have done evil
things, because he has worked very diligently. I believe that with his
help that the chairman, Mr. Hyde, in conference, is going to be able to
develop exactly the right thing.
I would say to my friends who are worried and say they are going to
vote ``no'' because as currently written this bill will not cut off
Hamas, the only effective way to get a bill to cut off Hamas from
funding, to block aid to the terrorists, is to vote ``yes'' for this
bill to send it to conference. This bill should be passed in the House.
We should go to conference.
Frankly, our goal should be to get this bill out of conference before
the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. I believe it is
going to take a difficult conference. I think it can be done. I, for
one, am not at all ashamed of the fact that it is hard to write this
bill correctly.
The challenge of a free society--I want to come back to this because
it is at the core of what we are wrestling with--the challenge of a
free society is to have a government strong enough to protect us from
danger and carefully enough constrained to not itself be a danger. That
is what we are wrestling with.
If you vote ``no'' on Conyers and ``yes'' on final passage, you are
voting for an effective, enforceable death penalty. You are voting for
effective steps to stop terrorism. You are voting for the prudent,
correct steps in the right direction, preserving civil liberties and
preserving our safety at the same time.
I commend the gentleman from Illinois, who has done an outstanding
job of bringing this bill to the floor. I think this bill is a
substantial step in the right direction. I urge all of my colleagues,
vote ``no'' on Conyers and vote ``yes'' on final passage, for a safer
and a freer world.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, again we are presented with a missed
opportunity. H.R. 2703, as it was presented for a final passage vote,
contains virtually no provisions necessary to aid law enforcement in
stopping terrorist attacks which is the stated purpose of the
legislation.
I would have supported H.R. 2703 as it was reported by the Committee
on the Judiciary. Unfortunately, the Barr amendment, as adopted,
stripped the bill of its most important provisions including sections
that might have helped protect law enforcement from killer bullets,
helped trace explosives, and allowed law enforcement to trace
terrorists' phone calls.
In addition, the Barr amendment gutted the bill's sections requiring
swift expulsion of foreign terrorists and the amendment weakened
efforts to eliminate domestic fundraising support of terrorism
overseas. For example, nothing in this bill would prevent Hamas, a
terrorist group located in and around Israel, from fundraising in the
United States.
Had the Barr amendment failed, I would not have supported the
Conyers-Nadler amendment. The Conyers-Nadler amendment removed
important habeas corpus language and necessary law enforcement
measures. The bill, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, is stronger
than the Conyers-Nadler substitute. However, once the Barr amendment
passed, I voted for the Conyers-Nadler substitute because it put a
number of key provisions back into the bill.
I opposed the Watt-Chenoweth amendment because it would have
eliminated the bill's restrictions on habeas corpus appeals to Federal
courts by death row prisoners. Habeas corpus reform is long overdue
and, although not directly related to fighting terrorism, it is an
important measure to pass.
[[Page H2266]]
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed in the present form of H.R.
2073. Terrorism threatens innocent people, both in America and abroad.
I hope that many of the significant measures in H.R. 2703, as reported
by the Judiciary Committee, will be restored by the conference
committee so that I will be able to support the conference report.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, it was with regret that I cast a ``no'' vote
today on final passage of H.R. 2703, the Effective Death Penalty and
Public Safety Act. In previous years as a member of the minority party
in Congress, I regularly voted ``no'' on Democrat legislation which I
believed to be inconsistent with my views of a limited Federal
Government. I am proud to say that in the 104th Congress I have cast
many more ``aye'' votes than ``no.'' However, today I must oppose H.R.
2703, as amended. While my vote puts me at odds with my party
leadership, I remain obligated first to my constituents and my
convictions.
I know that this antiterrorism legislation was drafted with the best
intentions. The domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City, along with
the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City were
reprehensible acts. I recognize too that American citizens abroad have
been victims of terrorist attacks simply because of their nationality.
Furthermore, the most fundamental responsibility of government is to
provide for the common defense of its citizens. However, I cannot
justify a needless expansion of Federal law enforcement authority for
these worthy purposes.
Accordingly to a report prepared by the Congressional Research
Service, the list of current Federal antiterrorist laws is 17 pages
long. I could accept a measured modification of current law to deal
with specific deficiencies, but object to this overbearing legislation
because it will trample on constitutionally protected rights of
Americans.
Before further expanding Federal laws, I believe that Congress ought
to first review the Federal Government's role in law enforcement. In
particular, a comprehensive oversight of all Federal law enforcement
agencies, especially the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to
investigate abuses of authority is overdue. I, along with many
Republican colleagues, fought against the omnibus crime bill passed and
signed into law by President Clinton during the last Democrat-
controlled Congress. Until we act to repeal some of these needless and
dangerous laws, I cannot support further expansion of Federal authority
in law enforcement.
While this stance may put me at odds with some, letters and phone
calls from my constituents were overwhelming in their opposition to
this legislation. On behalf of them, and my convictions, I had no
alternative but to oppose H.R. 2703. I can only hope that my colleagues
will keep these points in mind as the bill proceeds to conference with
the other body.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of H.R.
2703, the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act. In the wake of
the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City last April 19, the Congress
realized a need to reform the terrorism and death penalty laws
currently on the books. We did not rush into action on this bill, and
many changes have been made to ensure that the bill would establish
tougher statutes to allow Federal law enforcement officials to more
effectively prevent and punish acts of domestic terrorism while still
respecting the rights of our citizens. The end result is a tough,
comprehensive bill of which we should all be proud.
I support the inclusion of the language in the Barr amendment, which
goes the extra mile to ensure the protection of Americans' personal
rights. The Barr amendment removes the provision calling for a study of
the ``cop-killer'' ammunition. Instead, the amendment provides for a
more balanced and appropriate study on law enforcement safety issues.
The amendment would also delete the onerous wiretap provisions. I have
heard from many Nevadans who were concerned about the potential for
government intrusion in their lives.
H.R. 2703 also includes much needed habeas corpus reforms. Delays in
death penalty cases of more than a decade are common, making abuse of
the habeas corpus system the most significant factor in States'
inability to implement credible death penalties. The reforms included
in the legislation sets very strict time limits, and includes very
strong States' rights provision that lessen the amount of Federal
intrusion caused by expansive reviews of State court convictions and
sentences, particularly in capital cases.
I hope all of my colleagues can join with me today in supporting the
new and improved version of H.R. 2703.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 294, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 65]
AYES--129
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dixon
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--294
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
[[Page H2267]]
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Chapman
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Durbin
Hall (OH)
Menendez
Moakley
Stokes
{time} 1431
Ms. PRYCE, Mr. COBURN, and Mr. DeLAY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. WILLIAMS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hobson) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 380, he reported the
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONYERS. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2703 to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 191, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 66]
AYES--229
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goss
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Baker (CA)
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Campbell
Cardin
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Funderburk
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Tate
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--12
Callahan
Chapman
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Durbin
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Meek
Menendez
Moakley
Quillen
Stokes
1453
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Quillen for, with Mr. Stokes against.
Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye,''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________