[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.

                          ____________________