[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. NANCY PELOSI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 14, 1996

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2703) to 
     combat terrorism:

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers-
Nadler-Berman substitute to H.R. 2703. The substitute is a reasonable 
and measured attempt to address threats to U.S. citizens posed by 
terrorism without creating threats to our fundamental constitutional 
protections.
  In this debate, we should stipulate that all of us are concerned 
about the increase in domestic terrorism and that our thoughts and 
prayers are with the survivors of the terrible terrorist acts which we 
have seen perpetrated against U.S. citizens, including the terrorism 
directed at Federal workers in Oklahoma City. We can and must act 
against terrorism. At the same time, we must ensure that our actions 
are effective and within the bounds of the Constitution, which has 
safeguarded basic American freedoms for over 200 years.
  H.R. 2703 poses serious threats to civil liberties and civil rights. 
I have a number of concerns about H.R. 2703. The bill expands the use 
of the death penalty and changes the use of habeas corpus petitions, 
severely restricting avenues of recourse to the judicial system for 
people sentenced to death. The death penalty is not a punishment which 
should be taken lightly. Frankly, I do not believe it should be used at 
all. But since the death penalty is utilized, we must ensure that 
people sentenced to death have sufficient opportunity to petition for 
relief if they have not had a fair trial or competent counsel.
  The bill also contains changes to asylum law which threaten our 200-
year history of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution in 
their countries of origin. I agree that we need to be able to exclude 
terrorists from our shores. I do not agree that we should turn away 
others who come to the United States seeking haven from persecution. 
That protection is one of the principles upon which this U.S. standing 
as an international beacon of freedom and hope is built.
  The Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute addresses many of my concerns. 
This substitute deletes H.R. 2703's restrictions on habeas corpus 
appeals. It deletes the expedited asylum procedures contained in H.R. 
2703. And, it provides for expedited deportation for terrorists without 
violating constitutional protections.
  The Conyers-Nadler-Berman mechanism for expedited deportation of 
terrorists is in accordance with procedures for dealing with classified 
information and preserves a fundamental principle of our justice system 
which grants accused individuals the right to face their accuser and to 
confront evidence. Regardless of what we think of individuals and the 
crimes of which they are accused, we are a nation of laws. The Conyers-
Nadler-Berman substitute strikes a balance by allowing for the use of 
sensitive information in the deportation process while also preserving 
the right of the accused to mount an adequate defense.
  And, the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute prohibits foreign terrorist 
groups such as Hamas from fundraising in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute, 
which increases our ability to stop terrorism while continuing to 
preserve our precious constitutional protections. We must fight 
terrorism. If, however, we undermine our civil liberties in that fight, 
the terrorists win. They succeed not only by sowing terror through 
their heinous acts, but also by undermining the very system which they 
claim to be fighting against. The Conyers-Nadler-Berman substitute is 
the best option before us in this debate and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.

                          ____________________