[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3365-S3381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee for his work on this bill and the distinguished 
ranking member for his work on this bill.
  I am particularly disappointed that the House succeeded in gutting 
the commonsense prohibition on distributing instructions for bomb 
making for criminal purposes. I will talk about that in a minute. But 
the good news is that the conference report also restored good 
provisions to this bill. I am especially gratified that the conference 
committee restored my amendment which gives the Secretary of Treasury 
the authority to require taggants for tracing explosives.

  The Senator from Delaware, the distinguished ranking member, just 
explained what taggants are: simple little coded plastic chips that are 
mixed with batches of commercially available explosives. They allow law 
enforcement to trace a bomb that has exploded, just like one would 
trace a car by knowing the license plate number. That is exactly what 
taggants are.
  It was studied 16 years ago. Everybody said go ahead with it. They 
have been available. And it has now happened.
  Incidentally, it took the Unabomber 18 years to, quite possibly, get 
caught. Three people have been killed, 23 people have been wounded, in 
bombs that really plagued nine States. This time could have been cut in 
half, perhaps, if we had tagging of explosives.
  Unfortunately, the bill completely exempts black powder from either 
tagging or study requirements. I must say, how can a bill even refute 
the ability to study tagging of black powder? The amendment I submitted 
on taggants essentially provided for its addition, taggants' addition, 
where explosives would be bought in larger amounts. But, where small 
amounts of black powder were purchased to use in antique guns and for 
small arms, the taggant would not be included.
  The NRA opposes this. What the National Rifle Association is clearly 
saying is they do not want any taggants in black powder explosives 
period, or even a study of it. Can you imagine the power of an 
organization that is able to successfully say we will not even study 
the impact of tagging black powder, which is also used as the 
triggering device on major explosive bombs that are used by terrorists? 
I have a very hard time with that.
  I heard the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee just 
say the NRA opposed excluding alien terrorists from this country. The 
NRA opposed excluding alien terrorists from this country--unbelievable. 
I think I just heard him say the NRA opposed a prohibition on 
fundraising in this country by terrorist groups.
  Let me tell you something, if anybody believes that Hamas is in this 
country raising money to use it for charitable purposes, I will sell 
you a bridge tomorrow. I will sell you a bridge tomorrow. That is just 
unbelievable to me.
  Nevertheless, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 
standing Utah tall in the conference committee on the issue of 
taggants. I would like to thank Senator Biden and Senator Kennedy for 
their help as well. I think this is a very important step forward and I 
do not mean to diminish it in any way.
  I also must say that I view the habeas corpus reform also as an 
important step forward. Abuse of the writ of habeas corpus, most 
egregiously by death row inmates who file petition after petition after 
petition on groundless charges will come to an end with the passage and 
the signature of this bill. I believe it is long overdue.
  For anyone who believes that habeas is not abused, let me just 
quickly--because it has been thrown out before, and I know others want 
to speak--speak about the Robert Alton Harris case. It, I think, is a 
classic case on what happened with Federal habeas corpus, and State 
habeas corpus.
  Mr. Harris was convicted in 1978 for killing two 17-year-old boys in 
a merciless way, eating their hamburgers, and then going out and 
robbing a bank.
  His conviction became final in October of 1981. Yet, he was able to 
delay

[[Page S3366]]

enforcement of the California death penalty capital sentence until 
April 21, 1992--for 14 years.
  Over that time, he filed no fewer than 6 Federal habeas petitions and 
10 State petitions. Five execution dates--five execution dates--were 
set during the pendency of his case. In all, Harris and his attorneys 
engineered almost 14 years of delay and piecemeal litigation by misuse 
of habeas corpus, and, I might say, it was 14 years of unresolved grief 
for the parents of the children.
  I think cases like that one point out the need for habeas corpus 
reform, and, frankly, I want to commend the Judiciary Committee, and in 
particular the chairman, for seeing that that is included.
  Senator Hatch also just mentioned the pathogens incident. In the 
Judiciary Committee, we had some full hearings, that were rather 
chilling to many of us, on how easy it is to obtain human pathogens.
  I cannot help but note that the Chair is a distinguished physician 
and surgeon who knows this area well. But what we found out, 
essentially, is that one person--namely, Larry Wayne Harris--managed to 
order and to receive samples of bubonic plague through the mail less 
than a year ago.
  Incredibly, although he was caught, he could be charged with only 
wire and mail fraud, because there were no laws on the books 
prohibiting the possession of bubonic plague pathogens. In fact, he 
made up a letterhead and sent it in to a lab, asked to purchase the 
plague bacteria, and it was sent to him, no questions asked. So this 
bill clearly takes care of that problem.
  It adds that any attempt, threat, or conspiracy to acquire dangerous 
biological agents for use as a weapon are crimes punishable by fines or 
imprisonment, up to life imprisonment.
  It also asks the Secretary of HHS to establish and maintain a list of 
biological agents which pose a severe threat to the public safety, and 
it directs the Secretary to establish enforcement and safety procedures 
for the transfer of human pathogens.
  As a matter of fact, a number of us wrote a letter to the President 
and urged that emergency action be taken quickly because of the 
potential ability of people to acquire these bacteria prior to the 
enactment of this statute.
  I want to also express my thanks that fundraising by terrorist 
organizations will be prohibited in the United States of America. I 
think it is extraordinarily important that this take place.
  I am also very pleased that there is a section, known as 330, of the 
conference report--which, as a matter of fact, I offered--which 
prohibits the United States from selling weapons and defense services 
to countries that the President determines are not fully cooperating 
with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.
  This is a commonsense provision, and I am amazed that there has been 
nothing in law that meets it. But there certainly is no reason the 
United States should continue to provide weaponry to any country that 
refuses to do all it can to combat terrorism.
  My big disappointment--and I think because the Presiding Officer is 
relatively new to this body, he would be interested to know--is that on 
the Internet today, there is a volume called The Terrorist Handbook. 
The Terrorist Handbook describes how you can make bombs, whether those 
bombs are in baby food jars, in electric light bulbs or in telephones. 
To my knowledge, there is no legal use for a bomb in a baby food jar, 
for a bomb in a light bulb, or for a bomb in a telephone. You know that 
once you teach somebody how to do that, their only use of the knowledge 
is to slaughter and to kill.
  So I have a very hard time understanding why simple language, which 
says if you knowingly publish material with the intent of enabling 
someone to commit a crime, shall not be permitted.
  Let me quote the February 2, 1996, New York Times Metro section. 
Headline: ``3 Boys Used Internet to Plot School Bombing, Police Say.''
  Three 13-year-old boys from the Syracuse area have been charged for 
plotting to set off a home-made bomb in their junior high school after 
getting plans for the device on the Internet. The boys, all eighth 
graders at Pine Grove Junior High School in the suburb of Minoa, were 
arrested Wednesday by the police. ``There is no doubt that the boys 
were serious,'' the captain said, adding that they've recently set off 
a test bomb in a field behind an elementary school and that it started 
a small fire.
  This cartoon is exactly what is happening all across the United 
States with young people. The cartoon is a youngster, sort of a Dennis-
the-Menace type sitting at his computer, wrapping dynamite and 
attaching a detonation and clock device to it, while his mother is on 
the telephone saying ``History * * * astronomy * * * science * * * 
Bobby is learning so much on the Internet.''
  I have another article. The Los Angeles Times, just this past 
Saturday, April 13: ``Four Teens Admit to Bombs in Mission Viejo School 
Yard.''
  The boys, all 15- and 16-year-olds, told investigators they learned 
how to build the small high-pressure explosives from friends who got it 
off the Internet. According to the chief, who is then quoted, ``It's 
something they're getting off the Internet. Any time you mix volatile 
chemicals and have a little bit of knowledge, you put yourself and 
others in jeopardy.''
  A third article, Orange County Register, ``2 Home-Made Bombs 
Dismantled in Orange'' County.
  Authorities theorize that teens are learning how to make the 2-liter 
bottle devices on the Internet. Ladies and gentlemen, how far do we 
wish to push the envelope of the first amendment?

  Let me tell you what is also in this ``Terrorist Handbook.'' People 
say, ``Well, we have a first amendment right.'' There is a part on 
breaking into a lab. This ``Terrorist Handbook,'' which we downloaded 
yesterday on the Internet, let me quote from it. The first section 
deals with getting chemicals legally. This section deals with procuring 
them.

       The best place to steal chemicals is a college. Many state 
     schools have all of their chemicals out on the shelves in the 
     labs, and more in their chemical stockrooms. Evening is the 
     best time to enter a lab building, as there are the least 
     number of people in the building and most of the labs will 
     still be unlocked. One simply takes a bookbag, wears a dress 
     shirt and jeans, and tries to resemble a college freshman. If 
     anyone asks what such a person is doing, the thief can simply 
     say he's looking for the polymer chemistry lab or some other 
     chemistry-related department other than the one they are in.

  Then it goes on and it tells them how to pick the lock to break into 
the chem lab. It tells them what kind of chemicals to steal from the 
chem lab, and then to go out and how to make the bomb--baby food bomb, 
telephone bomb, light bulb bomb.
  We know people are following this. Yet this conference committee 
deleted--deleted--a simple amendment which said, if you knowingly 
publish this kind of data with the view that someone will commit a 
crime, that is illegal--that is illegal. The conference committee voted 
it down, I would take it, at the behest of the National Rifle 
Association. Why? I cannot figure out why. I cannot to this day figure 
out why.
  Let me give you one other quote that was on the Internet. It tells 
you where to go.
       Go to the Sports Authority or Hermans sports shop and buy 
     shotgun shells. At the Sports Authority that I go to you can 
     actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or adult. They 
     don't keep it behind the little glass counter or anything 
     like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells.
  Then the computer bulletin board posting provides instructions on how 
to assemble and detonate the bomb. It concludes with:
       If the explosion doesn't get 'em, then the glass will. If 
     the glass doesn't get 'em, then the nails will.
  This is what, by rejecting my simple amendment, the conference is 
saying is permissible on the Internet.
  Let me give you one last thing so that it is, hopefully, indelibly 
etched in everybody's mind what we are doing. Following Oklahoma City, 
this was on the Internet.
  ``Are you interested in receiving information detailing the 
components and materials needed to construct a bomb identical to the 
one used in Oklahoma?'' The information specifically details the 
construction, deployment, and detonation of high powered explosives. It 
also includes complete details of the bomb used in Oklahoma City and 
how it was used and how it could have been better.
  How far are we pushing the envelope of the first amendment? What I 
have

[[Page S3367]]

tried to show is that not only is this kind of thing with knowledge, 
with intent, on the Internet, but that youngsters are using it. They 
have used it within the last 2 weeks in New York, in California, and 
they have used it to do bodily harm to others.
  So this is my big disappointment in this bill, because I believe we 
have as much to fear from domestic terrorism, as I think the Unabomber 
has pointed out, as we do from foreign terrorism. It begins right here 
at home. It begins with a system that lets everybody do anything they 
want, including telling you how to steal, break in and steal the 
chemicals, make the bombs, go out and deliver them.
  I believe it is the job of this Congress to try to do something about 
it. With that in mind, I will support the amendment to recommit this to 
committee. I realize that that is a useless gesture, but just to make 
the point.
  I will vote for this legislation and I will at the earliest time 
possible reintroduce my amendment on another bill to take another crack 
at saying the time has come for the United States of America to say, 
indeed, everything does not go. There are some restrictions and some 
things that we are going to do to stop criminality in this country. I 
thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I served as a conferee representing the 
Senate, and I am pleased that the House and Senate conferees have 
resolved the differences between our respective bills to combat 
terrorism. We must send a clear message to those who engage in this 
heinous conduct that the American people will not tolerate cowardly 
acts of terrorism, in any fashion--whether their source is 
international or domestic.
  It is important that the Congress work closely with Federal law 
enforcement to provide the necessary tools and authority to prevent 
terrorism. Yet, I am mindful that an appropriate balance between 
individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the needs of law 
enforcement must be achieved as we meet our responsibility. The 
American people appropriately look to their government to maintain a 
peaceable society but do not want law enforcement to stray into the 
private lives of law-abiding citizens. The balance is to provide 
reasonable authority to law enforcement to investigate and prevent 
terrorism while respecting the rights of the American people to form 
groups, gather and engage in dialog even when that dialog involves 
harsh antigovernment rhetoric.
  Mr. President, it is my belief that this conference report will 
enhance law enforcement capabilities to combat terrorism while 
respecting our cherished rights under the Constitution. This 
legislation includes provisions to increase penalties for conspiracies 
involving explosives and the unauthorized use of explosives, enhance 
our ability to remove and exclude alien terrorists from U.S. territory, 
provide private rights of action against foreign countries who commit 
terrorist acts, prohibit assistance to countries that aid terrorist 
states financially or with military equipment, and enhance prohibitions 
on the use of weapons of mass destruction. Also, there are a number of 
other measures designed to combat terrorism which were included and 
detailed earlier by the able chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Hatch.
  Clearly, one of the most important sections included in the 
conference report is language designed to curb the abuse of habeas 
corpus appeals. In fact, we heard from families of the Oklahoma bombing 
victims who demand that habeas reform be included to make this a truly 
successful bill.
  Mr. President, for years, as both chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked for reform of habeas corpus 
appeals. The habeas appellate process has become little more than a 
stalling tactic used by death row inmates to avoid punishment for their 
crimes.
  Unfortunately, the present system of habeas corpus review has become 
a game of endless litigation where the question is no longer whether 
the defendant is innocent or guilty of murder, but whether a prisoner 
can persuade a Federal court to find some kind of technical error to 
unduly delay justice. As it stands, the habeas process provides the 
death row inmate with almost inexhaustible opportunities to avoid 
justice. This is simply wrong.
  In my home State of South Carolina, there are over 60 prisoners on 
death row. One has been on death row for 18 years. Two others were 
sentenced to death in 1980 for a murder they committed in 1977. These 
two men, half brothers, went into a service station in Red Bank, SC, 
and murdered Ralph Studemeyer as his son helplessly watched. One man 
stabbed Mr. Studemeyer and the other shot him. It was a brutal murder 
and although convicted and sentenced to death these two murderers have 
been on death row for 15 years and continue to sit awaiting execution.
  The habeas reform provisions in this legislation will significantly 
reduce the delays in carrying out executions without unduly limiting 
the right of access to the Federal courts. This language will 
effectively reduce the filing of repetitive habeas corpus petitions 
which delays justice and undermines the deterrent value of the death 
penalty. Under our proposal, if adopted, death sentences will be 
carried out in most cases within 2 years of final State court action. 
This is in stark contrast to death sentences carried out in 1993 which, 
on average, were carried out over 9 years after the most recent 
sentencing date.
  Mr. President, the current habeas system has robbed the State 
criminal justice system of any sense of finality and prolongs the pain 
and agony faced by the families of murder victims. Our habeas reform 
proposal is badly needed to restore public confidence and ensure 
accountability to America's criminal justice system.
  We have a significant opportunity here to fight terrorism and provide 
certainty of punishment in our criminal justice system. The preamble to 
the U.S. Constitution clearly spells out the highest ideals of our 
system of government--one of which is to ``insure domestic 
tranquility.'' The American people have a right to be safe in their 
homes and communities.
  I am confident that this antiterrorism legislation will provide 
valuable assistance to our Nation's law enforcement in their dedicated 
efforts to uphold law and order.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Dole 
for setting aside the immigration bill, the illegal immigration bill, 
temporarily so we can pass this terrorism conference report.
  I might mention to my colleagues this is a conference report and is 
not really amendable. It does not mean we do not have parliamentary 
procedures and it does not mean people cannot delay or procrastinate or 
mean we cannot say we can send it back to the conference with specific 
amendments. They have the right to do so. But I am going to urge my 
colleagues not to do so. If we do so, we are not going to finish this 
bill. I would like to finish this bill this week.
  I would really like to compliment my colleagues, Senator Hatch, and 
also Senator Biden, as well as our colleague in the House, Chairman 
Hyde, for their work in the last couple of weeks in melding the two 
bills together.
  This is a compromise bill. I do not make any bones about it. It is 
probably not perfect. But it is a good bill, and it needs to pass, and 
it needs to pass this week. If we recommit this bill, we are not going 
to get it done this week. So I urge my colleagues, it might be tempting 
and it may be politically appealing, for whatever reason, to recommit 
this bill and to score some points or run against the NRA or whatever, 
but I urge them to set that aside.
  Let us pass this bill. This is a positive bill. It is a good bill. It 
is a bill that has very, very strong support and a lot of emotional 
connections in my State. I think everybody is well aware of the fact 
that this Friday is the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing 
that took 168 innocent lives of men, women, and children. The families 
of those victims have urged us to pass this bill. They have admitted 
maybe this bill is not perfect, but they think it is a good bill. I 
have met with several of the victims and families of the victims. They 
said, please pass this bill.
  The No. 1 provision that they want in this bill is the so-called 
habeas corpus

[[Page S3368]]

reform. They want an end to these endless appeals of people who have 
been convicted of atrocious crimes and murders. An end to abusing the 
judicial system, abusing taxpayers, filing frivolous appeals, endless, 
endless appeals.
  In Oklahoma actually several were wearing buttons that had a 17 with 
a line through it. They were referring to Roger Dale Stafford. In 1978, 
he murdered nine individuals in my State. First he murdered the Lorenz 
family--he was a sergeant. Sergeant Lorenz saw a stopped car with the 
hood up. So he pulled over and stopped to help Stafford. Lorenz was 
with his wife and his child. Roger Dale Stafford murdered him, murdered 
his wife, and went back into the car and murdered their son; and then 
shortly after that murdered six people. Most of them were kids in a 
Sirloin Stockade restaurant. He herded them into a freezer or 
refrigerator and murdered them in cold blood.
  That was in 1978. His execution did not happen until last year, 1995. 
He was on death row for 17 years. The families of the victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing have said we need habeas corpus reform. This is a 
Federal crime. They will be tried under Federal statute. The death 
penalty does apply. If convicted, they would like to have the sentence 
carried out swiftly, not 20 years from now. They feel very, very 
strongly about it.
  I want to thank my colleagues for working over the last couple of 
weeks when the Senate was in recess. We do not usually do that. It does 
not happen very often around here. Usually we have a break or recess 
for whatever reason and staffs and Senators take off and not a lot of 
work is done. But this time was different.
  I also again want to thank Senator Dole and also Speaker Gingrich 
because I personally appealed to both and said I would really like to 
get this bill up and passed through both Houses of Congress by this 
anniversary date. I would like to go back to Oklahoma on Friday and 
tell the families that, yes, we have passed this antiterrorism bill.

  It has a lot of provisions, a lot of good provisions. I realize in 
the legislative process we make some compromises. It has been pointed 
out maybe there are a couple of provisions that should not be in or 
have been left out. My colleague from Delaware mentioned expanded 
wiretaps. A lot of people in my State have real second thoughts about 
that. I do not know. I supported it when it passed the Senate. It may 
be a good provision. Maybe I was wrong. I am not sure.
  I am not an expert in that area, but I know that habeas corpus 
reform, or death penalty reform, needs to pass. That is the foremost 
thing on the minds of the victims of the Oklahoma tragedy. If we send 
this back to committee, we will not be able to pass this bill this 
week. I will be more than disappointed if that happens.
  We have a couple of other provisions that are very important to the 
people of Oklahoma. We put in a provision, and I want to thank my 
colleagues, both Senator Hatch and Senator Biden for supporting this 
provision, that will allow and actually provide for closed circuit TV 
viewing of the trial proceedings in the Oklahoma bombing case. 
Unfortunately, the trial was moved to Denver. In Denver they have a 
courtroom, I believe, that holds 130 people. The judge said we will 
have an annex for audio, so in total, maybe 260 people including press 
would have the opportunity to attend or hear the trial. Frankly, that 
is not enough. That is not near enough. Not to mention the fact that 
the individuals and families would have to travel over 500 miles, and 
be away from the rest of their family. It would be an enormous 
inconvenience. We have raised some money to assist them. I am sure some 
families would like to personally attend the trial and we will try and 
help them financially, as well.
  I thank the Attorney General for helping in that manner. She wrote me 
a letter saying they were contributing the travel fund. I asked the 
Attorney General's assistance so that those who could not travel to 
Denver could view the trial through closed circuit TV coverage. We 
think that a decision to permit this by the court is discretionary and 
it should happen. Unfortunately, she has declined to help us with the 
closed circuit TV provision. This bill says that the court must provide 
closed circuit coverage of the trial for victims and their families. It 
will be closely monitored. The court will have complete control over 
the coverage. This is not for public viewing but for the families, so 
they can view the trial without leaving their home, without leaving the 
rest of their families, maybe without having to take several months off 
from their jobs or their workplaces. This is going to be a very 
traumatic time for them and it would be much better for them as 
individuals to be able to view this at home and still be able to be 
with their family members and friends instead of dislocating them for 
several months, sending them to Denver, and only a very small 
percentage of them being able to even be present in court, and be more 
than frustrated by being so close yet so far away because they would 
not have access to the proceedings in the trial.
  I am appreciative of this one provision, and again I thank my 
colleague from Utah and my colleague from Delaware for inserting this 
provision. There is a comparable provision in the House bill. This is 
most important to the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City 
bombing.
  Finally, I want to comment on one other provision. This bill provides 
for mandatory restitution for victims of Federal violent crimes, 
property crimes, and product tampering crimes. This is a measure that 
we have spoken about on the floor of the Senate countless times. This 
is a measure that has passed the Senate three or four times. This is a 
measure that has bipartisan support. Senator Biden, Senator Hatch, 
myself, and others have worked to put this in. We have passed it in 
various crime control packages in the past. Unfortunately, when we have 
had a conference it has not remained in the conference package. This is 
a most important provision where we do give respect, treatment 
and assistance for the victims of crime--mandatory restitution for 
victims. We should pay more attention to victims instead of to the 
criminals, as we have done in the past. I am most appreciative. This is 
a very important provision.

  I think our colleagues have put together a good bill. It may not be 
perfect. I have heard my colleague from Utah say, well, as far as some 
of the other provisions, maybe the provision that was alluded to by our 
colleague from California dealing with Internet and directions for 
explosives, that may be a good provision. I may well support it. It 
does not have to be in this package. I hope that if there are other 
good provisions not included in this bill, we can garner overwhelming 
support in the Senate, we can take them up separately and pass them 
this year. I would like to think that we have a window of opportunity 
of a couple of months where we can pass substantive legislation without 
playing politics. I hope we do not play politics with this bill.
  I keep hearing statements about the NRA and others, there are a lot 
of people that are concerned about expanding wiretap authority and they 
do not have anything to do with the NRA. Maybe that is a good 
provision. I am not debating that. Maybe it should be debated, but 
debate it separately. If we put some of those provisions in, there will 
be problems in the House and we will not pass this bill this week. To 
me that would be a real shame. That would be something that we should 
not do. This is an important bill. This is a good bill, a bill that 
should pass, that should pass tonight. I would hope that my colleagues 
would join together, resist the temptation to send this back to 
conference, knowing it would delay it. Hopefully, they would join us in 
saying, ``Let's pass this bill,'' and if we want to consider separate 
measures dealing with taggants or anything else that was originally in 
the House bill or originally in the Senate bill, or maybe originally in 
the President's bill, we can consider that independently.
  This is a conference report. Most of our colleagues are aware of the 
fact we do not usually amend conference reports, and if we do, we could 
put unnecessary delay on this legislation which would be a serious 
mistake. On behalf of the victims of the tragedy that happened on April 
19, 1995, in Oklahoma City, on behalf of the families and the countless 
number of people who were impacted directly, I urge my colleagues, let 
Members pass this bill, pass this bill tonight, no later than tomorrow, 
get it through the House, as well, so we can let them know that we

[[Page S3369]]

have listened to them, we have heard them, and we have passed a good 
antiterrorism bill with real habeas corpus reform, with real death 
penalty reform, with a provision allowing them to have closed circuit 
TV viewing of the trial. I think they will be most appreciative. I know 
they will be most appreciative.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate not just 
today but the debate on this for the past year. I remember so well the 
incident, when my fellow Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, and I 
were in Oklahoma City right after it happened for the days following 
that, talking to families and the ones who actually had their own loved 
ones that were still in the building, not knowing whether they were 
alive or dead.
  It is very difficult to get the full emotional impact watching TV of 
some remote place like Oklahoma from outside. When you are there, you 
feel differently about it. This is why Senator Nickles and I have such 
strong feelings about this bill.
  There is some opposition in this bill even in the State of Oklahoma 
by many people who felt that perhaps the wiretapping provisions went a 
little bit too far, the invasion of civil rights and privacy, perhaps 
was a little too strong. Many of my conservative friends did not want 
me to support it.
  I was very pleased when the conference came out with its report. I 
believe the bill we have today is better than the House bill was. It is 
better than the Senate bill that we sent to them. I feel much stronger 
about it now and much more supportive than I did before. I think 
Senator Nickles has covered most of the things that people in Oklahoma 
are concerned with. I can just tell you it is not a laughing matter 
that these people do want an opportunity. These are not wealthy people. 
They feel they should participate, at least be able to view the trial 
taking place. That is something that is in this bill. It will allow 
them to do it. Many of them could not sustain the hardship of making a 
trip to Denver.
  There are a lot of things in here that I think are better than they 
were when we sent it over. The one area I want to concentrate on and 
just emphasize again is the habeas reform. My concern, and in fact, I 
can tell you, if that had been taken out I probably would have opposed 
the bill. Two months after the tragedy, the bombing tragedy in Oklahoma 
City, we had the families of the victims up here, in Washington, DC. I 
personally took them to many Senators' offices. They expressed to them 
that of all the provisions that would come out in an antiterrorism 
bill, the one that was the most significant to them was the habeas 
reform.
  It happened to coincide with something that Senator Nickles and I are 
very familiar with, a murder that had taken place 20 years ago, by a 
man named Roger Dale Stafford. Roger Dale Stafford murdered nine 
Oklahomans in cold blood. He sat on death row for 20 years. We just 
finally carried out that execution. These families are looking and 
saying, ``Here is a guy that sat on death row. He gained over 100 
pounds, so the food was not too bad. He was in an air-conditioned cell 
and watched color TV.'' They are thinking about what happened to their 
own members of their family. I look at it behind that. If you get 
someone with a terrorist mentality, and particularly, someone, perhaps, 
from the Middle East who has a different value on life than we do, if 
he is looking at the down side and saying, should I do this act, should 
I perform this act, and the worst thing that can happen to me is that I 
will sit in an air-conditioned cell and watch color TV for 15 years, 
punishment ceases to be a deterrent to crime.
  So I think that is a very significant provision that has to be saved. 
I think any chance on sending this back might jeopardize the chances of 
having that type of reform. Again, that was the one thing that was in 
this bill that the families of the victims in Oklahoma said we really 
have to have; that is the one thing that has to be in there that is 
going to give us any relief at all. Once the person is apprehended and 
the trials and sentence are over, and if it is an execution, they want 
to go ahead and go through with it and not have the perpetrator of the 
crime that murdered their families sitting on death row for most of 
their lifetimes.
  So I think this is a very good bill. I will just repeat an emotional 
appeal from the victims and families of the victims in Oklahoma. Let us 
get this passed and let us get it passed before April 19, on Friday. It 
is very, very important for us, and I hope we move along on this. We 
have been considering this for quite a period of time. We started right 
after the bombing. So we have had adequate time to be deliberative--as 
deliberative as this body is famous for being. I think it is time to go 
ahead and pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
antiterrorism conference report.
  First, it is with great sadness that we approach the first 
anniversary of the bombing in Oklahoma City. It was truly a tragic 
event carried out by premeditated and dreadful murderers. I just hope 
that the people that carried out that act get the justice they so 
deserve.
  Mr. President, one of the most important reforms made by this bill 
are those reforms to our death penalty procedures. For too long, 
murderers have been on death row, filing appeal after appeal, in the 
hopes of finding some small legal loophole--anything they can find that 
will nullify their sentence.
  The people of this country are sick and tired of murderers being put 
on death row and then sitting there, as Senator Inhofe said, watching 
television, getting fat, and at an enormous cost to the American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, since the death penalty was reestablished in 1977, 
over 400,000 people have been murdered. But only 200 have been 
executed. This is hardly a message that our justice system is swift or 
sure to those that break the law.
  In my home State of North Carolina, we have over 100 people on death 
row, with an estimated cost of close to $50,000 a year to keep them 
there--per person. Yet, in the last 16 years, only 5 people have had 
the death sentence carried out in North Carolina, with 100 waiting. 
There have been delays, delays, and more delays, simply using one 
loophole behind another. Simply, the executions have not been carried 
out, at an enormous cost to the State of North Carolina for attorneys 
to fight these endless appeals.
  In the United States, as a whole, there are over 2,700 people on 
death row. Over half have been there longer than 6 years. Further, of 
those on death row, over half were on probation or parole when they 
were arrested for murder. What does this say about the justice system?
  Is it any wonder that crime has increased 41 percent in the last 20 
years? Is it any wonder that violent crime has increased by 100 percent 
in the last 20 years? Our judicial system has been made a mockery by 
those who set out to break the law.
  For those that carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, they probably 
never thought they would get caught. Fortunately, and luckily, with 
good police work, they were caught. But they probably believe that they 
can beat the system. I hope not, but I am sure they believe it. They 
probably think they can make a mockery of the justice system, as so 
many others have. Certainly, we will be hiring the most expensive 
lawyers out there to help them to beat the system.

  In this country, we need to reestablish a respect for the law. 
Criminals need to know that if they commit murder, they will receive 
the death penalty. And, more importantly, they need to know that it 
will be carried out, and they will not be held on death row with 
endless delays.
  With this bill, we finally have broken the logjam on the issue. We 
keep passing bill after bill that increases penalties and provides new 
capital offenses; yet, we do nothing to reform our justice system to 
see that the punishment is carried out.
  Finally, we have done something to end the frivolous appeals filed by 
death row inmates.
  Mr. President, I support this conference report. I thank Senator 
Hatch, and others, who have pushed death penalty reform to the 
forefront in this bill.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S3370]]

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I hope both of my friends from Oklahoma and 
my friend from North Carolina--speaking to my friends from Oklahoma--
understand that we do not want the delay in this bill. This bill got 
delayed in the House of Representatives for close to 6 months. I did 
not hear people coming to the floor with me and saying, ``Where is the 
bill, where is the bill, where is the bill, where is the bill?'' Now we 
are told to make this bill workable, and we should not attempt to do 
better.
  I cannot believe the Senator from North Carolina would support a 
provision allowing, for example, someone to be taught how to make 
another fertilizer bomb to blow up another Federal building--maybe this 
one in North Carolina--and maybe learn how over the Internet. He would 
not want that to happen. Yet, he is probably going to vote against 
adding that provision back into the bill. He will probably vote, ``No, 
I will not send it back to the conference and have them include that 
provision.''
  We had a provision saying you cannot teach people how to make 
fertilizer bombs, plastic bombs, and baby food bombs on the Internet, 
when you know the intent is for that person to use it. Yet, they are 
all going to stand here and vote against me on that. I find that 
fascinating.
  I hope the folks in every one of our districts remember this. They 
are going to vote against me when I say we want to prevent future 
Oklahomas. We want to take care of those victims of Oklahoma and make 
sure retribution is had. That is why the crime bill I authored set the 
death penalty for it. And there would not even be a death penalty had 
President Clinton's crime bill not passed. Those people in Oklahoma 
would not be able to get the death penalty.
  Some of my colleagues voted against the crime bill, and now they are 
hailing the death penalty. The only reason why those people are being 
tried and, if convicted, will get death, is because of the crime bill 
they voted against. I find this kind of fascinating logic going on 
here.
  The third thing I point out, and that was tried in Federal court--and 
then I will yield to my friend from Georgia, who has a very important 
amendment or very important motion to make--I also point out that we 
should be worried about future victims. Future victims.
  The comment was made--and a legitimate comment--by one of my 
colleagues a moment ago, when he said, ``On behalf of the victims of 
the bombing in Oklahoma, please pass this bill.'' On behalf of the tens 
of millions of Americans who may be the next victims, on behalf of 
them, please give the police the authority they need to enhance their 
ability to prevent future Oklahomas by allowing them to wiretap these 
suspected terrorists under probable cause, just like we do the 
Mafia. What is good enough for the Mafia ought to be good enough for a 
bunch of whacko terrorists.

  So not only mourn those who died, which I do, but pray for those who 
are living that they continue to be able to live. I mean, how in the 
Lord's name can we, after Oklahoma, stand here on the floor and vote 
against the motion I predict they will vote against which says you 
cannot teach someone how to make a fertilizer bomb on the Internet when 
you know it is going to be used? They are going to vote against that. 
What about future Oklahomas?
  I see my friend form Georgia is ready to proceed. So I will yield the 
floor for the purpose of his making his motion after I make a 
concluding statement.
  In each of these amendments that I offered yesterday, Chairman Hyde 
in the transcript of yesterday's proceedings said--this is what this is 
all about--and I quote. He said:

       Mr. Chairman, [Chairman Hyde speaking] may I say something? 
     Mr. Chairman, let us cut to the chase. I agree with the 
     Senator [i.e. Senator Biden] and have always agreed with the 
     Senator on this issue, the wiretap issue. The facts of life 
     are that we lose about 35 votes in the House if we pass the 
     wiretap provision.

  That is what this is about--35 folks in the House who do not like it. 
That is why we are going to vote against our interest probably in the 
next couple of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could take a second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree with the 35, but all of those oppose the bill 
anyway. But it is a lot more than 35 people who will vote. I just 
wanted to make that statement.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator 
Biden's motion which he will, I understand, make in a few minutes--I do 
not think it has yet been made--to recommit the conference report 
because it fails to address a very significant gap in the law which we 
corrected when we passed the Senate bill regarding the use of chemical 
and biological weapons of mass destruction in criminal terrorist 
activities.
  The Armed Forces have special capabilities, and they are the only 
people that have special capabilities to counter nuclear, biological, 
and chemical weapons. They are trained and equipped to detect, 
suppress, and contain these dangerous materials in hostile situations. 
The police authorities of our country and the fire departments of our 
country do not have the capability to deal with chemical and biological 
attacks or the threat of those attacks. They do not have the equipment. 
They do not have the protective gear.
  We have had four hearings in the last 6 weeks in the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, of which I am the ranking member and 
Senator Roth is the chairman. Let us be very clear. With the testimony 
from law enforcement officials, from fire officials, from city 
officials, State officials, and from our own people in the Federal 
Government, that, if there were a chemical or biological attack in this 
country, we would have as the first victims those who came to the 
rescue. It would be those personnel coming to the rescue of those 
innocent victims who are caught in that situation that would also 
become victims themselves because they are not equipped to detect. They 
are not equipped to really deal with and they certainly are not 
equipped to withstand the lethal capability of chemical and biological 
weapons. Over a period of time they may be able to.
  One of the things I am going to be talking about in the weeks ahead 
is a package of legislation which I hope Senator Lugar and I will be 
sponsoring. One of the things we are going to need to do is to give, I 
think, our military both the capability with funding and also the 
authority and responsibility to help begin training our police and law 
enforcement officials around the country. It is going to take a long 
time.
  We are in a different era now, Mr. President. One of the things that 
many people do not recognize after the attack in Tokyo where the avowed 
goal of the group that had really prepared very extensive capabilities 
for chemical warfare on their own people is that if they had the kind 
of delivery system that a few weeks later they might have had, instead 
of 15 or 20 people being killed and several hundred being injured, 
there literally would have been tens of thousands of deaths right there 
in Tokyo. We are in that era now.
  A lot of people do not also understand that in the World Trade Center 
bombing there was really very strong evidence that a chemical component 
was in the explosive material. There was an attempted effort at 
chemical attack there also, but the chemical element was consumed by 
the huge fire and explosion. So we have had that attempt also in this 
country.
  My point is that it is a very dangerous omission in not giving the 
kind of clear authority in this conference report that we had in the 
Senate bill.
  At the present time the statutory authority to use the Armed Forces 
in situations involving the criminal use of weapons of mass destruction 
extends only to nuclear material. Section 831 of title 18, United 
States Code, permits the Armed Forces to assist in dealing with crimes 
involving nuclear materials when the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of Defense jointly determine that there is an emergency situation 
requiring military assistance. There is no similar authority to use a 
special expertise in the Armed Forces in circumstances involving the 
use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

[[Page S3371]]

  In the wake of the devastating bombing of the Federal building in 
Oklahoma City and also the World Trade Center, with the tragic loss of 
life in Oklahoma and the disruption of governmental facilities, I think 
it is appropriate and absolutely necessary to reexamine Federal 
counterterrorism capabilities, including the role of the Armed Forces.
  For more than 100 years, military participation in civilian law 
enforcement activities has been governed by the Posse Comitatus Act. 
The act precludes military participation in the execution of laws 
except as expressly authorized by Congress. That landmark legislation 
was the result of congressional concern about increasing use of the 
military for law enforcement purposes in post-Civil War era, 
particularly terms of enforcing the reconstruction laws in the South 
and suppressing labor activities in the North.
  There are about a dozen express statutory exceptions to the Posse 
Comitatus Act, which permit military participation in arrests, 
searches, and seizures. Some of the exceptions, such as the permissible 
use of the Armed Forces to protect the discoverer of Guano Islands, 
reflect historical anachronisms. Others, such as the authority to 
suppress domestic disorders when civilian officials cannot do so, have 
continuing relevance--as shown most recently in the 1992 Los Angeles 
riots.
  It is important to remember that the act does not bar all military 
assistance to civilian law enforcement officials, even in the absence 
of a statutory exception. The act has long been interpreted as not 
restricting use of the Armed Forces to prevent loss of life or wanton 
destruction of property in the event of sudden and unexpected 
circumstances. In addition, the act has been interpreted to apply only 
to direct participation in civilian law enforcement activities--that 
is, arrest, search, and seizure. Indirect activities, such as the loan 
of equipment, have been viewed as not within the prohibition against 
using the Armed Forces to execute the law.
  Over the years, the administrative and judicial interpretation of the 
act, however, created a number of gray areas, including issues 
involving the provision of expert advice during investigations and the 
use of military equipment and facilities during ongoing law enforcement 
operations.
  During the late 1970's and early 1980's, I became concerned that the 
lack of clarity was inhibiting useful indirect assistance, particularly 
in counterdrug operations. I initiated legislation, which was enacted 
in 1981 as chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
rules governing military support to civilian law enforcement agencies.
  Chapter 18, as enacted and subsequently amended, generally retains 
the prohibitions on arrest, search, and seizure, but clarifies various 
forms of assistance involving loan and operation of equipment, 
provision of advice, and aerial surveillance. Chapter 18 does not 
authorize military confrontations with civilians in terms of arrests, 
searches, and seizures. Chapter 18 also ensures that DOD receives 
reimbursement for military assistance that does not serve provide a 
training benefit that is substantially equivalent to that which would 
otherwise be provided by military training or operations.
  The administration requested legislation that would permit direct 
military participation in specific law enforcement activities relating 
to chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction similar to the 
exception that already exists under current law that permits the direct 
military participation in the enforcement of the laws concerning the 
improper use of nuclear materials.
  Mr. President, the nuclear kind of incident is entirely possible. We 
have to be prepared for it. We are much better prepared to deal with 
nuclear than we are with chemical or biological. We have the capability 
in the Department of Energy with a team that has been training and 
working on this for years, and they are much better prepared. We do not 
have a similar capability for chemical or biological.
  So by the omission of this specific authority in this bill, we are 
taking the most likely avenue of attack for terrorism in this country 
with mass-destruction weapons--and that is chemical or biological--and 
we are not putting that in the same category as nuclear, which is 
possible, and we must be prepared for it. But a nuclear attack is not 
as likely to happen as a chemical or biological attack.
  Last June, the Senate included such legislation in the 
counterterrorism bill with safeguards to ensure that it would only be 
used in cases of emergency and under certain specific, carefully drawn 
limitations. In my judgment, the question of whether we should create a 
further exception for chemical and biological weapons should be 
addressed in light of the two enduring themes reflected in the history 
and practice and experience of the Posse Comitatus Act and related 
statutes:
  First, the strong and traditional reluctance of the American people 
to permit any military intrusion into civilian affairs.
  Second, the concept of any exception the Posse Comitatus Act should 
be narrowly drawn to meet the specific needs that cannot be addressed 
by civilian law enforcement authority. The record is abundantly clear 
that we are talking about exactly that. These are cases where local law 
enforcement and State law enforcement simply could not handle the job.
  These issues were examined at a hearing before the Judiciary 
Committee on May 10, led by the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Hatch, and the ranking minority member, Senator Biden. At the hearing, 
five major themes emerged:
  First, we should be very cautious about establishing exceptions to 
the Posse Comitatus Act, which reflects enduring principles concerning 
historic separation between civilian and military functions in our 
democratic society.
  Second, exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act should not be created 
for the purpose of using the Armed Forces to routinely supplement 
civilian law enforcement capabilities with respect to ongoing, 
continuous law enforcement problems.
  Third, exceptions may be appropriate when law enforcement officials 
do not possess the special capabilities of the Armed Forces in specific 
circumstances, such as the capability to counter chemical and 
biological weapons of mass destruction in a hostile situation.
  Fourth, any statute which authorizes military assistance should be 
narrowly drawn to address with specific criteria to ensure that the 
authority will be used only when senior officials, such as the 
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, determine that there is 
an emergency situation which can be effectively addressed only with the 
assistance of military forces.
  Fifth, any assistance which authorizes military assistance should not 
place artificial constraints on the actions military officials may take 
that might compromise their safety or the success of the operation.
  The Senate provision was drafted to reflect the traditional purposes 
of the Posse Comitatus Act and the limited nature of the exceptions to 
that act. The motion to recommit that we will be voting on in a few 
minutes would require the conferees to reinstate that provision with a 
minor technical clarification that has come to our attention since the 
Senate bill was passed.
  Under the motion to recommit, the Attorney General would be 
authorized to request the assistance of the Department of Defense to 
enforce the prohibitions concerning biological and chemical weapons of 
mass destruction in an emergency situation.
  The Secretary of Defense could provide assistance upon a joint 
determination by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General that 
there is an emergency situation, and a further determination by the 
Secretary of Defense that the provisions of such assistance would not 
adversely affect military preparedness. Military assistance could be 
provided under the motion to recommit only if the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of Defense jointly determined that each of the following 
five conditions is present. This is very narrowly drawn.
  First, the situation involves a biological or chemical weapon of mass 
destruction.
  Second, the situation poses a serious threat to the interests of the 
United States.
  Third, that civilian law enforcement expertise is not readily 
available to

[[Page S3372]]

counter the threat posed by the biological or chemical weapon of mass 
destruction involved.
  Fourth, that the Department of Defense special capabilities and 
expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the biological or 
chemical weapon of mass destruction involved.
  Fifth, that the enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired if 
Department of Defense assistance were not provided.
  I have a very hard time understanding why the House of 
Representatives would not accept this provision. Maybe there is a 
reason, but I certainly have not heard that reason. Nothing that I have 
heard indicates why our military could not be used, when we have a 
biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction involved in the 
situation, a serious threat is posed to the interests of the United 
States, civilian law enforcement expertise is not available to counter 
the threat, Department of Defense capabilities are needed to counter 
the threat, and law enforcement would be seriously impaired if DOD 
assistance is not provided.
  I think the American people would expect us to be involved in that 
with the military, to protect the lives of American citizens.
  The types of assistance that could be provided during an emergency 
situation would involve operation of equipment to monitor, to detect, 
to contain, to disable or dispose of a biological or chemical weapon of 
mass destruction or elements of such a weapon. The authority would 
include the authority to search for and seize the weapons or elements 
of the weapons.
  We may get into a situation where it is not entirely clear whether 
there is a chemical or biological weapon but someone has threatened 
that that kind of weapon is contained in a basement somewhere in a 
city.
  If the President of the United States does not have this statutory 
authority, he is going to be very reluctant to put the military into 
downtown New York to look for chemical or biological weapons. It would 
be extremely dangerous for law enforcement to undertake that task, but 
the President will be on the very conservative side and very reluctant 
to take that step unless he has absolute belief that there is such a 
weapon and a disaster is impending.
  Unfortunately we are not going to have that kind of clarity, in my 
view, in the future. So it is important for Congress to speak to this 
issue.
  If the Biden amendment is agreed to and it goes back to conference, 
and this becomes law, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense 
would issue joint regulations defining the type of assistance that 
could be provided. The regulations would also describe the actions that 
the Department of Defense personnel may take in circumstances 
incidental to the provision of assistance under this section, including 
the collection of evidence. This would not include the power of arrest 
or search or seizure, except for the immediate protection of life or as 
otherwise authorized by this provision or other applicable law.
  This provision is set forth in the motion to recommit. If it is 
agreed to, and I hope it is, it would make it clear that nothing in 
this provision would be construed to limit the existing authority of 
the executive branch to use the Armed Forces in addressing the dangers 
posed by chemical and biological weapons and materials.
  The motion to recommit would address two important concerns. First, 
as a general principle, the types of assistance provided by the 
Department of Defense should consist primarily in operating equipment 
designed to deal with the chemical and biological agents involved, and 
that the primary responsibility for arrest would remain with the 
civilian officials. As a law enforcement situation unfolds, however, 
military personnel must be able to deal with circumstances in which 
they may confront hostile opposition. In such circumstances their 
safety and the safety of others and the law enforcement mission cannot 
be compromised by putting our military in that dangerous situation and 
then precluding them from exercising the power of arrest or the use of 
force.
  Mr. President, some people wanted to pass a statute saying the 
military could do everything but they could never make an arrest. I 
think they ought to defer to civilians in almost all circumstances. But 
we do not want to have our military team out there in chemical gear, 
looking for chemical weapons, some of which may already be escaping, no 
policemen being able to go in because they do not have the equipment, 
no fire authority able to go in, run right into the people perpetrating 
the act and not be able to do anything about it. So we have to give 
them that kind of limited authority in unusual, and hopefully 
circumstances which, God forbid--I hope they will never occur. But I 
must say the likelihood of something like this occurring in the next 5 
to 10 years in America is, in my view, very high.
  The motion to recommit would require the Department of Defense to be 
reimbursed for assistance provided under this section in accordance 
with section 377 of title 10, the general statute governing 
reimbursement of the Department of Defense for law enforcement 
assistance. This means that if DOD does not get a training or 
operational benefit substantially equivalent to DOD training, then DOD 
must be reimbursed.
  Under the motion to recommit, the functions of the Attorney General 
and the Secretary of Defense may be exercised, respectively, by the 
Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, each of 
whom serves as the alter ego to the head of the Department concerned. 
These functions could be delegated to another official only if that 
official has been designated to exercise the general powers of the head 
of the agency. This would include, for example, an Under Secretary of 
Defense who has been designated to act for the Secretary in the absence 
of the Secretary and the Deputy.
  The limitations set forth in the motion to recommit would address the 
appropriate allocation of resources and functions within the Federal 
Government; and are not designed to provide the basis for excluding 
evidence or challenging an indictment.
  The motion to recommit, which reflects the Senate-passed provision, 
is prudent and narrowly drafted. It was strongly supported in the 
Senate by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Thurmond. It was unanimously adopted by the Senate. The administration, 
both the Department of Defense and Department of Justice, have 
testified that current law is inadequate and they need authority to 
deal with chemical and biological terrorism similar to the authority 
they now have for nuclear terrorism. It is irresponsible to leave our 
law enforcement officials and military personnel without clear 
authority to deal with these dangers.
  I know the argument is made that we already have the insurrection 
statute on the books, which possibly could cover this situation. I 
would like to just share with my colleagues, before I close, a reading 
of that statute so they will understand why we need to have 
clarification.
  Under the insurrection statute, sections 331-335, title 10 United 
States Code, the President can use the military in the following 
situations.

       To suppress an ``insurrection'' at the request of a State.
       To suppress ``unlawful obstructions, combinations, or 
     assemblages, or rebellion [that] make it impractical to 
     enforce the laws of the United States in any State or 
     Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.''
       To suppress ``any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful 
     combination, or conspiracy'' if it ``so hinders the execution 
     of laws'' that a State or the Federal Government cannot 
     enforce the laws.

  Before using these authorities, the President must issue a 
proclamation that, ``order[s] the insurgents to disperse and retire 
peacefully to their abodes within a limited time.''
  Can you imagine somebody coming into the President saying, ``Mr. 
President, we expect an attack. We cannot prove this but we expect a 
chemical attack in New York City or Chicago in the next 12 to 24 hours. 
We desperately need our military teams to go to a potentially hostile 
situation with protective gear to detect and determine if that kind of 
material is present within certain areas of New York.''
  And the President says, ``How do I do that?''
  They say, ``Mr. President, what you first have to do is issue a 
proclamation, saying that the insurgents should disperse and retire 
peacefully to their abodes within a limited time.''

[[Page S3373]]

  Mr. President, can you imagine a President saying to his staff, ``You 
mean you want me to issue that? We have a terrorist group in New York 
City running around and you want me to issue a proclamation for the 
whole world to see and for the American people to laugh at, saying that 
the insurgents must disperse and retire peacefully to their abodes 
within a limited time? I will be laughed out of the White House if I do 
that.''
  Any President would be extremely reluctant to use that kind of 
authority. Besides that, this is not an insurrection. It is not an 
unlawful combination or conspiracy designed to hinder execution of the 
laws. To fit chemical or biological terrorism under the insurrection 
statute would require an extremely awkward and very stretched 
application. I think the President would only use that if he was 
absolutely convinced that being scoffed at and made fun of all over the 
world by issuing such a ``disperse and retire peacefully'' order would 
be outweighed by almost the certainty that that kind of calamity was 
about to happen.
  These statutes are designed to deal with civil disorders, not 
terrorism. When the terrorists are on the subway with chemical or 
biological agents of mass destruction, must we await the President's 
issuing of a proclamation and ordering the terrorists to ``retire 
peacefully to their abodes?''
  The reason we have the statute that allows military assistance in the 
event of nuclear offenses is to provide for prompt and effective 
employment of military personnel to address the emergency, without the 
need to interpret the law or determine whether there is some inherent 
authority to assist. Chemical and biological weapons are more likely to 
be used, and they present the same problems of mass catastrophe as do 
nuclear weapons, and we should not delay clarification of the authority 
of the military personnel to provide specific assistance in emergency 
situations.
  I do not understand why people oppose this. I cannot understand why 
the House opposes it. I think it is irresponsible not to proceed as the 
Senator from Delaware is urging us to proceed with his motion.
  I know there is one other argument that says, because of a Supreme 
Court decision, there is inherent authority for the President to act 
with the military or with whatever he has to use to protect against the 
immediate threat to life. I would not deny that in certain situations 
the President might use this authority. Certainly in desperate 
situations he might. This is not statutory authority. It requires him 
to exercise constitutional, inherent authority. This is a very 
difficult situation and the military personnel involved, if the 
President is wrong in his assessment of inherent and immediate threat 
to life, would be at risk. They would be at risk of lawsuits and 
liability. They would be at risk of all sorts of problems if the 
President is wrong because they would not be acting under color of law.
  So this immediate-threat-to-life inherent authority, though possibly 
available in desperate situations, is simply not the way to proceed. It 
would be a classic lawyers' debate. What we are doing now, if we leave 
the law as it is, as this bill before us will do unless it is amended, 
unless it is sent back to conference and amended, we are basically 
saying we are going to have one big furious debate among lawyers as to 
what authority would be used in what could be a matter of urgency, 
extreme urgency where every minute and every hour counted for the 
military to get into the business where we have a true emergency and 
American life is threatened.
  So the present law is inadequate. The constitutional inherent 
authority of the President is inadequate in this situation, and the 
insurrection law would be, I think, resisted fiercely by any President 
where you would have to basically make an almost preposterous-type plea 
for the people who are perpetrating this act of terrorism to disperse 
and retire peacefully to their abodes within a limited time.
  I would like to hear someone explain why this is not part of this 
conference report. I know that the Senate supported it. My colleague, 
Senator Hatch, I am sure, urged its adoption in the House of 
Representatives. I do not understand why this has been taken out of 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Washington would like to make some remarks, but let me just make a few 
comments about the remarks of my distinguished friend from Georgia.
  I do not entirely disagree with Senator Nunn, the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia. At the outset, I want to call my colleagues' 
attention to the fact that the Congress has already acted in this area 
this year. Section 378 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
fiscal year 1996, which is already law, specifically provides the 
military can provide training facilities, sensors, protective clothing 
and antidotes to Federal, State, and local law enforcement in chemical 
and biological emergencies.
  From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to 
limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the 
terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the 
threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the 
military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and 
abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.
  I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn-
Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been 
suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and 
rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the 
military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early 
history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the 
Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of 
Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England 
that he had ``kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without 
the Consent of our legislature,'' and had ``affected to render the 
Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.''
  It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in 
the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the 
first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term ``posse comitatus'' 
means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the 
sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the 
law.
  The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from 
using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress 
expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains 
as is, in the hands of local communities.
  Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited 
exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the 
military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the 
rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they 
reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.

  The military is also authorized to share intelligence information 
with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. 
These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally 
empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of 
domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military 
authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems 
sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting 
authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or 
biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be 
unnecessary.
  The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist 
among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with 
chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise 
is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of 
chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have 
considerable experience in containing these substances.
  Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all 
aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this 
amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or 
contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide 
instructions and technical advice on

[[Page S3374]]

how to disable or contain a chemical or biological agent, and it can 
train civil authorities, if necessary.
  The one thing that this amendment adds to the military's ability to 
assist civil law enforcement is the permission to put military 
personnel on the scene and inject them directly into civilian law 
enforcement. This is, in my view, the one thing we should not do.
  This amendment would raise troubling implications going to the heart 
of the Posse Comitatus Act. It recognizes, as it must, that whenever 
law enforcement personnel are engaged in an evolving criminal event, 
there are unpredictable and exigent circumstances. The personnel on the 
scene must be able to take the necessary steps, including making 
arrests, conducting searches and seizures and sometimes using force to 
protect lives and property. Yet, the posse comitatus statute was 
enacted precisely to ensure that the military would not engage in such 
civilian law enforcement functions.
  Let me just say this. I agreed to the language that the distinguished 
Senator would like to put back in this bill in the Senate bill. I would 
not be unhappy if that language was in this bill. Unfortunately, the 
reason it is not is because we have people in the other body who 
basically are concerned about some of these issues that I have just 
raised. Rightly or wrongly, they are concerned, and we were unable in 
our deliberations, as much as we got this bill put together, as much as 
we have made it a very strong bill, we were unable to get that 
provision in.
  Let us just be brutally frank about this. If there is a motion to 
recommit on this issue, or any other issue, and that motion is approved 
by the Senate, then the antiterrorism bill is dead. If we do not, there 
will be a chance to put it through.
  Frankly, we have a very good bill here. It may not have every detail 
in it that I would like to have. It does not have every detail in it 
that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee would like to have 
or our distinguished colleagues Senators Biden or Nunn would like to 
have. I might add, it does not have all the provisions in it that 
Congressmen Barr and McCollum and Buyer and Schiff and others would 
like to have.
  Nobody is totally going to get everything they want in this bill. But 
what it does have is a lot of good law enforcement provisions that will 
make a real difference, in fact, right now against terrorism in our 
country and internationally. We simply cannot shoot the bill down 
because we cannot get a provision in at this particular time that we 
particularly want.
  We all understand this process. We all understand that we cannot 
always get everything in these bills that we want to. But I will make a 
commitment to my friend and colleague from Georgia, as I have on other 
matters. I do not disagree with him in the sense that this is something 
that perhaps we should do. I will make a commitment to do everything in 
my power to make sure we look at it in every way, and if we do not do 
it here--and I suggest we should not do it here on this bill under 
these circumstances--then I will try later in a bill that we can 
formulate that will resolve some of these conflicts that both the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware and I and the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia and I would like to see in this bill--and others, I might 
add.
  So there is no desire to keep anybody's provision out of the bill. 
There is no desire to not solve this problem. The problem is we cannot 
do it on this bill and pass an antiterrorism bill this year. I think 
one reason the President called me last Sunday, I am sure, is because 
he has been asking us to get him a terrorism bill. This is it. This is 
the week to do it. I think we have done a really extraordinary job of 
bringing this bill back from what it was when the House passed its 
bill.
  I give credit to the House Members. There have been a lot of 
wonderful people over there who have worked hard on this. I have 
mentioned some of them in my remarks here today. But certainly the 
distinguished chairman over there, Chuck Schumer, and others, and Bob 
Barr and others, have worked very hard on this bill.
  None of us have everything we want in this bill. And none of us want 
to see it go down to defeat because of any one provision that we can 
solve later as we continue to study and look at this matter.
  Also, one of the problems we have had in trying to bring together 
people on this very important piece of legislation is that there have 
been some perceptions over in the House as a result of some of the 
mistakes that law enforcement has made that perhaps we might be going 
too far if we follow completely the Senate bill as it came out of the 
Senate Chamber.
  I think those perceptions are wrong, but the fact is they are there. 
I think we have to work on them and educate and make sure that we, by 
doing future bills, will resolve these problems, solve them in the 
minds of not only Members of the House of Representatives who have 
complaints against some of this information, but also in the minds of 
others who would like their own provisions in the bill.
  I have to say there are some--and I do not include the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia among them--but there are some who are just plain 
and simply trying to stop this bill. They hate the habeas corpus 
provisions of this bill. I know the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
does not, that he is with me on those issues, but they do. And they 
will use any strategy to try to stop this bill because they do not want 
to have death penalty reform. This bill is going to bring that to all 
of us. It is worth it.
  If that is all we had in this bill, it is the one provision that 
every victim who appeared here yesterday and in the past has said they 
want more than anything else. There is a very good reason to pass this 
bill for that reason alone. But there are so many other good provisions 
in the bill that we ought to pass it. We ought to pass it, even though 
one or more provisions that we think might make the bill better cannot 
be put into it at this time.
  We have really worked our guts out to come out with a bill that I 
think can be supported in a bipartisan manner. We have really worked 
hard on that. I do not care who gets the credit for this bill. I can 
say we have worked very, very hard to have a bill that all of us can be 
proud of. And I think we do have one. Does it have everything in it? 
No. But it has so much in it that we really have to go ahead and get it 
done.
  If this motion or any subsequent motions to recommit are passed, this 
bill will be dead. I think that would be one of the most tragic things 
that this body could do this week, just a few days before the 
anniversary date of the Oklahoma City bombing.

  Yesterday, we had people from Pan Am 103 here as well. We had others. 
Frankly, they all asked us to get this bill through. I am doing 
everything I can to get it through. So I hope people will vote against 
this motion even though I myself have a great deal of respect for the 
Senator from Georgia, a great deal of empathy for his position, and I 
would, even if I did not understand it, I would want to support him as 
I often have done through the years here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate.
  I think basically that says it. I hope people will vote against any 
motion to recommit because it would be tragic for this bill to go down. 
I cannot imagine the majority voting it that way. I hope they will not 
in this particular instance.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will just make a few brief remarks.
  I have tremendous respect for my friend from Utah. He knows that. He 
and I have been on the same side of the habeas corpus issue for a long 
time. Now the Governor of Florida, then Senator from Florida, Lawton 
Chiles, and I came to the floor for 2 or 3 weeks in a row every day 
back in the 1970's, I believe--time slips by--about the importance of 
reform in habeas corpus. So I certainly share his view on that.
  As much as I think that needs reforming, I do not think that habeas 
corpus statutes are the problem now. It has been somewhat modified by 
the courts themselves. I do not think that is as urgent as what we are 
talking about here, because with the hearings we have had and with the 
tremendous amount of effort that I have made and Senator Lugar and 
others have made in this whole problem of the proliferation of chemical 
and biological weapons, I do not know whether anything is

[[Page S3375]]

going to happen next week, next month, or next year.
  I do know that we could have some calamity happen without any notice 
in this area. I hate to see our Nation so ill-prepared to deal with a 
threat that is much more likely to happen than some of the threats that 
we are prepared to deal with.
  Mr. President, something has happened to our Republican friends in 
the House of Representatives. I am not sure what deal was struck over 
there, but I recall very well being on the floor of the Senate--and my 
friend from Utah probably recalls this, too--when the House of 
Representatives passed an amendment--this was a good many years ago 
during the Reagan administration--that basically gave an order, waived 
the posse comitatus statute, gave the order, I believe by Congressman 
Hunter from California, to shut the borders down with our military, 
basically shut them down, I believe, within 45 days saying the military 
would be deployed all over the borders of the United States to 
basically close the borders, not let any drugs come through.
  We computed that we would have to bring all our military forces back 
from Europe, from Korea, from Japan, everywhere else to put them side 
by side virtually on the border to comply with that. It passed the 
House, and it was a Republican-sponsored amendment. Of course, after 
some light was shone over here on the floor of the Senate, we rejected 
that amendment. It did not happen.
  I also have a long history in this posse comitatus area because I 
thought certain carefully crafted exceptions to the statute needed to 
be made in the law enforcement and drug area, but carefully constructed 
so we did not get our military involved in search and seizure and 
arrest on a routine basis. I found myself debating the then-Senator 
from California, now Governor of California, where he proposed an 
amendment that would have had the military be able to make any kind of 
arrest and search and seizure for drug transactions in the domestic 
United States.
  That was another very, very broad waiver of the posse comitatus 
statute that I would have opposed. This would have made, on a routine 
basis, a military response for law enforcement. I opposed that. That 
was going too far.
  Here we have my colleagues on the House side, and for some reason now 
they have switched all the way over and they are worried about even 
using the military in a situation where we have a desperate situation 
with chemical and biological weapons where nobody else can handle it. I 
do not understand it. I do not understand what has transpired. But 
something strange has taken place here.
  I do think we have to approach this whole posse comitatus area with 
great care. We do not want our military engaged in law enforcement 
except as an absolute last resort when there is no other alternative 
and when the result of failure to be involved would be catastrophic.
  I also would ask my friend from Utah--and I know he has tried to 
sustain the Senate position on this; I know him well enough to know 
that he has done that, and you cannot do it on every item in 
conference--but I do not understand how people who supported the 
exception on the nuclear side to the posse comitatus statute that was 
made at the Reagan administration's request have a different view now. 
During the Reagan administration, they said they needed this exception. 
We had the same Constitution then, the same Supreme Court decisions, 
the same insurrection statute, but they wanted an exemption in the 
nuclear area so they could clearly have statutory authority. We 
supported that. That was not a partisan issue at all. Democrats and 
Republicans supported it. President Reagan signed it into law.
  Now we have the same kind of situation, almost identical, in the 
chemical and biological area. We have a different President in the 
White House, who is a Democrat, and we have a whole switch in positions 
where people say, ``Oh, we don't need this. We don't need it. We can't 
give them this authority,'' and so forth. I do not understand it. I 
understand partisan positions, but I do not understand completely 
switching philosophical positions on something of this nature.

  I make one other point. The Senator from Utah mentioned the provision 
we passed recently in the defense authorization bill that allowed the 
equipment of the military to be used and to be loaned to law 
enforcement and other domestic officials in situations that are 
chemical-biological. That is a very useful addition to the present 
authority. What you have to have there is personnel who are trained to 
use that equipment. You cannot jump into chemical protective gear and 
know how to operate it in an emergency situation, if the Defense 
Department brings it in and hands it to local police. You have to be 
trained in that.
  The military spends hundreds of hours training people in that regard. 
It will take years and years and years to train our domestic law 
enforcement and fire officials all over this country in the use of that 
kind of equipment. Unless they are already trained, that statute will 
not be available for practical use in an emergency situation. They may 
try to use it, but it will not do the job because it does not authorize 
military personnel to operate the equipment.
  We simply have a multiple number of cities around this country that 
could be struck, and we cannot freeze out and prevent our military from 
being involved in an emergency dire situation as a last resort. We have 
to have people who are trained and know how to use the equipment, not 
only protective gear but protective equipment. It cannot be done at the 
last minute when there is an immediate threat of attack.
  Mr. President, I would not be speaking in favor of this motion to 
recommit on an important bill like this if I did not think that the 
failure to act in this regard could have a very serious consequence. 
None of us can predict at what time interval something like this will 
occur. I hope never.
  I must say, the probability of having some kind of chemical or 
biological attack in the United States in the next several years is, in 
my view, a rather high probability. We will have to do a lot more than 
we have done so far to get ready for it. I hope that somehow the House 
of Representatives will recognize that.
  I know the Senator from Utah is absolutely sincere in his willingness 
to revisit this issue and try to put it on another bill. If this motion 
does not pass, I will work with him in that regard. I hope that those 
in the House will reexamine their position. I hope they get some of 
their staff to go through the records. We have had a considerable 
number of hearings on this explicit point.
  We have had all sorts of expert testimony from the fire chiefs around 
the country, from law enforcement officials, from Justice Department 
officials, the FBI, the military. We have had detailed hearings on the 
attack in Tokyo, what occurred there. Not only are we not prepared law 
enforcement-wise in this regard, we do not have the emergency medical 
training required in most of our American cities to deal with the 
aftermath of this kind of event if it did occur. We would simply be 
overwhelmed, and people would ask all of us, ``Where were you when this 
threat was being discussed, when you were, basically, responsible for 
doing something about it? Why did somebody not try to prevent it from 
happening, or at least prepare us to deal with the terrible medical, 
tragic consequence of this kind of attack?''
  Again, I urge the Biden amendment be adopted.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in monitoring the beginning of this 
debate, a set of lyrics from a source that I usually do not use came to 
mind as a bit of advice for the distinguished Senator from Delaware. 
These lyrics come from the Rolling Stones: ``You can't always get what 
you want. But if you try real hard you just might find, you just mind 
find, you get what you need.''
  Now, Mr. President, the conferees have tried real hard. They have 
tried real hard and I think indisputably, they have produced a bill 
that we very, very much need.
  Most of this afternoon, however, has been spent pointing out the 
bill's shortcomings, elements that the Senator from Delaware or the 
Senator from Georgia or, for that matter, the Senator from Utah wish 
were in the bill but are not. Certainly, this bill is not everything 
that the Senator from Delaware wishes, but it does contain a

[[Page S3376]]

lot of what he thinks is constructive. Even he admits, and I think I am 
quoting correctly, it is a ``useful, if frail'' antiterrorism bill.
  Senator Hatch, the distinguished Senator from Utah, has already 
outlined the positive steps in connection with a campaign against 
terrorism which are included in the conference report that is before 
the Senate now. I will not take up the time of the Senate simply by 
repeating them now. What we are faced with in the course of the current 
debate, however, is the question of whether or not we should reject 
what the conference committee has done, send it back, and ask that the 
committee effectively start all over again.
  This conference committee has labored long enough. I do not believe 
that the Senator from Utah has left anything on the table. I do not 
think that he walked away having omitted anything from this bill that 
his very best efforts and the help of other Senate Members in both 
parties could possibly have gotten included for us to make better an 
already fine proposition.
  What we have here is a meaningful antiterrorism bill, one that will 
make the law better than it is at the present time, one that will help 
the President and our Federal law enforcement officers by adding to the 
tools to deal with a new, highly regrettable situation with which our 
society is faced.
  But there is something else in this bill, Mr. President. That 
something else is highly controversial, something that I believe the 
President of the United States would just as soon not have in it, 
something that I think a number of other Members wish were not a part 
of this bill. Something, however, that I think is particularly 
important. That is the reform of our entire habeas corpus procedures in 
connection with the conviction for serious crimes.
  Doing something about a flawed habeas corpus system has been 
discussed in this Senate since I began serving here over a decade ago. 
We finally have an opportunity this evening in connection with this 
bill to do something positive about it.
  I believe that the Senator from Delaware has complained that habeas 
corpus reform is not relevant to an antiterrorism bill. Just as an 
aside, Mr. President, I find it a charming argument coming from the 
side of the aisle which insists on our voting on Social Security 
amendments and minimum wage amendments as a part of the debate over 
immigration. I am tempted to say that we might have stronger rules of 
relevance in connection with all of our debates. Be that as it may, I 
am convinced that habeas corpus is relevant to a bill with respect to 
terrorism.
  Mr. President, to deal effectively with any criminal challenge, we 
must have effective, clear, and cogent criminal statutes. We must have 
strong and skilled law enforcement officers to enforce those statutes 
and to arrest people who violate them. It is also absolutely vital, Mr. 
President, that when we do so, that when our system of justice has 
moved from apprehension through trial and conviction, that the people 
of the United States have a degree of confidence in the finality of 
those convictions after appropriate appeals, and that the punishments 
prescribed in those statutes will actually be carried out. That is an 
area, a field in which we have been a significant failure, Mr. 
President, because of the almost unlimited nature of our habeas corpus 
provisions.
  We talk of doing something about terrorism and the fear it instills 
because the people of the United States lack trust and confidence in 
their criminal justice system and feel unsafe on their streets, at 
least in part because they see delay after delay, appeal after appeal, 
a total lack of finality, thousands of dollars after thousands of 
dollars going into the endless delays in the execution of sentences, 
particularly related to capital punishment.
  Now, reforming habeas corpus is vitally important in that connection, 
Mr. President, and not just with respect to antiterrorism legislation, 
but with respect to all of the other serious crimes principally 
contained in our State and Federal criminal codes.
  Let us move from the abstract to the concrete for just a few moments. 
I would like to remind my colleagues of the subject on which I have 
spoken a number of times in the course of the last Congress--one 
particular case in the State of Washington, which illustrates the 
frustration that our people feel with a system of endless appeals.
  Charles Campbell was tried and sent to jail for the rape of a 
particular woman in a county just north of Seattle, WA. When he was on 
work release he went back to the home of this woman and murdered her, 
together with her 8-year-old daughter and a neighbor who just happened 
to be in the way. In 1982, he was charged with capital murder for those 
offenses and convicted. By 1984, that conviction had gone through the 
entire State court system, and the conviction and sentence had been 
affirmed by the Supreme Court for the State of Washington. From 1984 to 
1994, Mr. President--10 additional years--57 separate actions were 
taken in the Federal courts of the United States--a first direct appeal 
to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was turned down, 
followed by innumerable petitions for habeas corpus and appeals from 
various orders in those habeas corpus petitions.
  Remember, Mr. President, that even after a capital case has gone 
through all of its State court appeals and has been appealed to the 
Supreme Court of the United States, which has either affirmed it or 
failed to act, a single Federal district court judge can interrupt the 
process. That single judge can make a determination that all of the 
previous judges were wrong and send the case back to the State courts. 
More frequent than that, of course, is that the single Federal court 
judge, and then a circuit court of appeals, and perhaps then, again, 
the Supreme Court of the United States, finds nothing in error in these 
processes and affirms the State court decisions, at which point the 
process often starts over again with the filing of another petition for 
habeas corpus.
  That, Mr. President, more than any other single factor, I think, has 
caused the people of the United States to lose an important degree of 
faith in their criminal justice system.
  A reform of that system, not to deny a right of appeal, but in 
effect--except under extraordinary circumstances--to give only a single 
bite at the apple through the Federal court system, is the subject of 
the habeas corpus provisions that have been shepherded through both 
Houses of Congress by the distinguished Senator from Utah.
  It is my opinion, Mr. President, that these provisions complement, 
and are as important, or more important, than the strictly 
antiterrorism elements of this legislation. It is my opinion that the 
more strictly antiterrorism provisions of this legislation are 
themselves important. I find myself in agreement with all of those 
here, and I think that includes every Member of the Senate who has 
spoken on this subject, that we ought to do better, that we ought to 
have more antiterrorism legislation. I think it very unlikely that that 
is going to happen in the course of this Congress.
  As I have said before, I think the Senator from Utah got everything 
out of this conference committee that he could get, and the effect of a 
motion to recommit would simply be that we would either have no 
legislation on this subject, or this identical legislation, which is 
important, would be delayed.
  Delays have already been too long, Mr. President. I sincerely hope 
that the Members of the Senate will reject a motion to recommit and 
will promptly pass this legislation. The House is certain to do the 
same. We will, when the President has signed it, move forward on two 
distinct but related fields--significant progress with respect to 
antiterrorism, and significant progress with respect to reforming our 
habeas corpus system. For that, the Senator from Utah, and all who have 
worked on this legislation, deserve our grateful thanks and the thanks 
of the American people.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sure my friend from Washington is 
aware that these are Federal offenses we are creating here. They have 
nothing to do with State habeas corpus. He is aware of that, is he not?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. I think the Senator from Washington said when the 
Senator from Delaware was off the floor that he regards it as rather 
touching that the Senator from Delaware wants to make sure everything

[[Page S3377]]

we do is relevant to Federal antiterrorism legislation, when I believe 
he has been supporting the proposition on the other side of the aisle 
that immigration legislation should carry Social Security amendments 
with it and a number of other subjects of that sort.
  This legislation is, of course, dealing with Federal statutes and 
with Federal courts. Habeas corpus legislation, of course, deals 
primarily with State laws and State convictions, but with the 
interference by the Federal courts in those procedures.
  If the Senator would further yield a moment, I ask unanimous consent 
that a chronology of the Campbell case be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       April 14, 1982: Campbell beats and murders Renae Wickland, 
     in her Clearview, WA home, then beats and murders Wickland's 
     8-year-old daughter, along with a neighbor who stopped by the 
     home.
       November 26, 1982: Campbell is convicted of aggravated 
     first degree murder in Snohomish County Superior Court.
       December 17, 1982: Campbell is sentenced to death in 
     Snohomish County Superior Court.
       November 6, 1984: Washington State Supreme Court affirms 
     Campbell's conviction and sentence.
       April 29, 1985: The United States Supreme Court denies 
     Campbell's request to hear an appeal of his conviction.
       July 22, 1985: Campbell files an appeal in federal district 
     court.
       February 16, 1986: Federal district court denies Campbell's 
     appeal after an evidentiary hearing.
       February 18, 1986: Campbell appeals to the Ninth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals.
       October 6, 1987: The Ninth Circuit Court affirms the 
     district court's decision denying Campbell's appeal.
       June 8, 1988: The State of Washington moves to remove the 
     stay on Campbell's execution.
       July 10, 1988: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denies the 
     state's request.
       August 19, 1988: Campbell appeals his case again to the 
     United States Supreme Court.
       November 7, 1988: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear 
     Campbell's appeal.
       November 8, 1988: State of Washington files motion to move 
     forward with execution of Campbell.
       December 6, 1988: State Supreme Court agrees with State's 
     motion, denying the stay of execution.
       January 25, 1989: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees 
     with State Supreme Court, dissolving the stay of execution.
       February 15, 1989: Snohomish County Superior Court issues a 
     death warrant for Campbell's execution for March 30, 1989.
       March 7, 1989: Campbell files appeal with State Supreme 
     Court and a motion to stay the execution. In both documents 
     he raises several unsupported challenges to hanging as a 
     method of execution.
       March 23, 1989: The State Supreme Court unanimously rejects 
     all of Campbell's challenes against hanging and denies his 
     motion to stay the execution. The court concludes that none 
     of his issues warrant further consideration.
       March 24, 1989: Federal District Court Judge John 
     Coughenour, anticipating another appeal by Campbell in 
     federal court, summons attorneys for both sides into his 
     chambers to discuss the matter. Upon learning from Campbell's 
     attorneys that they intended to file an appeal the following 
     Monday, March 27, the judge calls for an evidentiary hearing 
     that day and in no way limits the issues that Campbell and 
     his attorneys will be allowed to raise. The judge also orders 
     Campbell and his former trial attorney to be present 
     regarding Campbell's claim of ineffective counsel.
       March 27, 1989: Campbell files another appeal and, at the 
     evidentiary hearing, raises three issues regarding hanging: 
     (1) hanging will deprive him of constitutional right against 
     cruel and unusual punishment; (2) the state has no one 
     qualified to perform the hanging; and (3) having to choose 
     between execution by lethal injection or hanging violates his 
     protection against cruel and unusual punishment and his First 
     Amendment freedom of religion. Campbell and his attorneys 
     offer no evidence to substantiate these issues and he again 
     claims he was represented by ineffective counsel. Later that 
     day, Judge Coughenour rejects Campbell's charges against 
     hanging, and denies his motion to stay the execution.
       March 28, 1989: Campbell appeals Judge Coughenour's denial 
     to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit 
     stays Campbell's execution, pending the appeal.
       June 27, 1989: Attorneys for the State and for Campbell 
     present oral argument to the Ninth Circuit Court.
       February 21, 1991: The Ninth Circuit orders the withdrawal 
     of Campbell's latest appeal, pending responses by the 
     attorneys on the question of whether Campbell has exhausted 
     all legal avenues in state court.
       March 4, 1991: The State responds to the 2/21/91 order, 
     demonstrating that Campbell has exhausted all other state 
     remedies.
       June 3, 1991: Campbell's attorneys inform the State Supreme 
     Court that they intend to file another appeal. This will be 
     his third separate appeal.
       August 7, 1991: The Ninth Circuit grants Campbell's request 
     to discharge his attorney, and delays its ruling on other 
     issues, pending review of Campbell's new appeal, which has 
     not yet been filed.
       September 13, 1991: Campbell files his third appeal.
       October 25, 1991: Bypassing the Ninth Circuit, the State 
     asks the U.S. Supreme Court to compel the Ninth Circuit to 
     resolve Campbell's earlier appeal (not the third appeal filed 
     on 9/13/91).
       January 13, 1992: The U.S. Supreme Court denies the State's 
     request to compel the Ninth Circuit to rule on Campbell's 
     appeal, but indicates the State may make additional requests 
     ``if unnecessary delays or unwarranted stays'' occur in the 
     Ninth Circuit's handling of the Campbell case.
       March 9, 1992: The U.S. District Court dismisses Campbell's 
     third appeal filed on 9/13/91.
       April 1, 1992: The Ninth Circuit Court affirms the district 
     court's denial of Campbell's earlier appeal (not the appeal 
     denied by the district court on 3/9/92).
       April 22, 1992: The State asks the Ninth Circuit to allow 
     Campbell's execution to move forward and to conduct an 
     expedited review of Campbell's third appeal (the appeal filed 
     on 9/13/91).
       May 5, 1992: The Ninth Circuit denies both requests by the 
     state.
       May 14, 1992: The State asks the Ninth Circuit to 
     reconsider both of its May 5 rulings.
       May 15, 1992: Campbell's attorney and Campbell himself ask 
     the Ninth Circuit Court for a rehearing.
       June 4, 1992: Campbell's attorney files legal brief in 
     Campbell's third appeal.
       December 24, 1992: The Ninth Circuit affirm's the district 
     court's denial of Campbell's third appeal.
       January 20, 1993: The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments on 
     Campbell's second appeal.
       January 26, 1993: The Ninth Circuit grants a request by 
     Campbell's attorney for a rehearing of Campbell's third 
     appeal, the denial of which the court affirmed on 12/24/92.
       January 29, 1993: The Ninth Circuit, in its reconsideration 
     of Campbell's second appeal, orders attorneys for Campbell 
     and the State to submit written arguments on whether hanging 
     is cruel and unusual punishment, and whether an evidentiary 
     hearing should be held in federal district court on the issue 
     of hanging.
       April 28, 1993: The Ninth Circuit orders Campbell's case 
     back to federal district court for an evidentiary hearing on 
     whether hanging is cruel and unusual punishment.
       May 4, 1993: The State asks the Ninth Circuit to reconsider 
     its April 28 order.
       May 7, 1993: The Ninth Circuit denies the State's request.
       May 10, 1993: The State appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
     asking it to set aside the evidentiary hearing in federal 
     district court and to require the Ninth Circuit court to rule 
     on whether hanging violates the Constitution.
       May 14, 1993: Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 
     issues a four-page chamber opinion indicating a single high 
     court justice does not have the authority to overrule an 
     order by the Ninth Circuit. She cites the ``glacial 
     progress'' of the Campbell case and dismisses the State's 
     appeal ``without prejudice,'' leaving open the door for the 
     state to press its case before the full Supreme Court.
       May 17, 1993: The State appeals the Ninth Circuit order to 
     the full Supreme Court.
       May 24-26, 1993: Judge Coughenour conducts an evidentiary 
     hearing on whether hanging is cruel and unusual punishment.
       June 1, 1993: The U.S. Supreme Court denies without comment 
     the State's request to vacate the Ninth Circuit's order to 
     conduct the evidentiary hearing.
       June 1, 1993: Judge Coughenour issues his findings and 
     conclusions, ruling that Washington's judicial hanging 
     protocol fully comports with the Constitution and does not 
     constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
       February 8, 1994: The Ninth Circuit rules 6-5 that hanging 
     does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and that 
     being forced to choose death by lethal injection, or face 
     death by hanging does not violate Campbell's constitutional 
     rights. The ruling states that the stay of execution will be 
     lifted and the mandate ordering the execution will be issued 
     21 judicial days following the order.
       February 15, 1994: Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire 
     files a motion with the Ninth Circuit to lift the stay of 
     execution. Attorneys for Campbell also file motions to 
     continue the stay of execution and to request reconsideration 
     of the Ninth Circuit's February 8 ruling by the full Circuit 
     Court.
       March 21, 1994: After waiting more than one month for the 
     9th Circuit to act on her motion, Attorney General Gregoire 
     asks the U.S. Supreme Court to remove the stay of execution. 
     Also on this date, the U.S. Supreme Court rejects Campbell's 
     appeal for a hearing on his third habeas petition.
       March 25, 1994: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor refuses to lift 
     the stay of execution.
       March 28, 1994: This date marks the fifth anniversary of 
     the stay of execution imposed by the 9th Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.
       April 14, 1994: This date marks the 12th anniversary of the 
     three murders committed by Campbell.
       April 14, 1994: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifts stay of 
     execution.
       April 15, 1994: State sets May 27, 1994 executive date.
       May 3, 1994: Campbell asks U.S. Supreme Court to stay 
     execution and rule on claim

[[Page S3378]]

     that hanging is unconstitutional method of execution.
       May 27, 1994: Campbell is executed.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, once again, my friend misses the point. I 
am not objecting to the State portion being put in here. That is not 
relevant. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It is not going to 
effect the bill. My colleague talks about this having an impact on 
terrorism. I believe we should reform State habeas corpus. We should, 
and it is appropriate to do it in this bill, as long as my friend from 
Washington does not have any illusions that he can go back and tell the 
people of Washington that by effecting State habeas corpus he has done 
something about terrorism. That is the point. It is relevant, just not 
relevant to stopping terrorism.
  The second point I will make--and then I will make my motion--is that 
people have been asking me about time. I am willing to enter into a 
time agreement. There are a maximum of a possible 14 motions. I doubt 
whether they will all be used. I am prepared to agree to one-half hour, 
equally divided, and to a time certain to vote tomorrow, or tonight, or 
whenever anybody wants to vote on it. So I want everybody to know that. 
I understand we may be trying to work that out now.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, that would be fine with me--
one-half hour equally divided. I am prepared to go and get it done. 
This is that important. The President has asked for it. He said he 
wants it as quickly as we can do it. We have all week, but we might as 
well find out whether we can do it at all. I believe we can, and with 
cooperation we can get this done. I am happy to cooperate and do it 
that way--just go bing, bing, bing, from here on out.
  Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to keep going now. That is a call of 
the leadership. That is up to them. In the meantime, while we are 
figuring out how long we are going to go----
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, we need to see what all the 
motions are. We need to know what those are. We would appreciate that.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to do that.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BIDEN. I offer a motion on behalf of Senator Nunn and myself to 
recommit the conference report with instructions to add a provision to 
give the military authority in the cases of emergency involving 
chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. President, once I formally make that motion, I would suggest to 
my colleagues that we will regret mightily if there is a chemical 
attack and this does not pass.
  I now formally offer that motion to recommit.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], for Mr. Nunn, for 
     himself and Mr. Biden, moves to recommit the conference 
     report with instructions to add provisions.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
motion be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion is as follows:

       Motion to recommit the conference report on the bill S.735 
     to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
     managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the 
     conference substitute recommended by the committee of 
     conference and insist on inserting the following:

     SEC.  . AUTHORITY TO REQUEST MILITARY ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT 
                   TO OFFENSES INVOLVING BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL 
                   WEAPONS.

       (a) Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction.--Section 175 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c)(1) Military Assistance.--The Attorney General may 
     request that the Secretary of Defense provide assistance in 
     support of Department of Justice activities relating to the 
     enforcement of this section in an emergency situation 
     involving biological weapons of mass destruction. Department 
     of Defense resources, including personnel of the Department 
     of Defense, may be used to provide such assistance if--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General 
     determine that an emergency situation involving biological 
     weapons of mass destruction exists; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of Defense determines that the 
     provision of such assistance will not adversely affect the 
     military preparedness of the United States.
       ``(2) As used in this section, `emergency situation 
     involving biological weapons of mass destruction' means a 
     circumstance involving a biological weapon of mass 
     destruction--
       ``(A) that poses a serious threat to the interests of the 
     United States; and
       ``(B) in which--
       ``(i) civilian expertise is not readily available to 
     provide the required assistance to counter the threat posed 
     by the biological weapon of mass destruction involved;
       ``(ii) Department of Defense special capabilities and 
     expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the 
     biological weapon of mass destruction involved; and
       ``(iii) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired 
     if the Department of Defense assistance were not provided.
       ``(3) The assistance referred to in paragraph (1) includes 
     the operation of equipment (including equipment made 
     available under section 372 of title 10) to monitor, contain, 
     disable, or dispose of a biological weapon of mass 
     destruction or elements of the weapon.
       ``(4) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense 
     shall jointly issue regulations concerning the types of 
     assistance that may be provided under this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall also describe the actions that Department 
     of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incident to 
     the provision of assistance under this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall not authorize arrest or any direct 
     participation in conducting searches and seizures that seek 
     evidence related to violations of this section, except for 
     the immediate protection of human life, unless participation 
     in such activity is otherwise authorized under paragraph (3) 
     or other applicable law.
       ``(5) The Secretary of Defense shall require reimbursement 
     as a condition for providing assistance under this subsection 
     in accordance with section 377 of title 10.
       ``(6)(A) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the 
     Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise 
     the authority of the Attorney General under this subsection. 
     The Attorney General may delegate the Attorney General's 
     authority under this subsection only to the Associate 
     Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General and only if 
     the Associate Attorney General to whom delegated has been 
     designated by the Attorney General to act for, and to 
     exercise the general powers of, the Attorney General.
       ``(B) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may 
     exercise the authority of the Secretary of Defense under this 
     subsection. The Secretary of Defense may delegate the 
     Secretary's authority under this subsection only to an Under 
     Secretary of Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense and 
     only if the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to whom 
     delegated has been designated by the Secretary to act for, 
     and to exercise the general powers of, the Secretary.
       ``(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit 
     the authority of the executive branch in the use of military 
     personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes 
     beyond that provided by law before the date of enactment of 
     [this Act].''.
       ``(b) Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The Chapter 
     113B of Title 18, United States Code, that relates to 
     terrorism, is amended by inserting after section 2332a the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 2332b. Use of chemical weapons

       ``(a) Offense.--A person who without lawful authority uses, 
     or attempts or conspires to use, a chemical weapon--
       ``(1) against a national of the United States while such 
     national is outside of the United States;
       ``(2) against any person within the United States; or
       ``(3) against any property that is owned, leased or used by 
     the United States or by any department or agency of the 
     United States, whether the property is within or outside of 
     the United States.

     shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if 
     death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `national of the United States' has the 
     meaning given in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
       ``(2) the term `chemical weapon' means any weapon that is 
     designed to cause widespread death or serious bodily injury 
     through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or 
     poisonous chemicals or their precursors.
       ``(c)(1) Military Assistance.--The Attorney General may 
     request that the Secretary of Defense provide assistance in 
     support of Department of Justice activities relating to the 
     enforcement of this section in an emergency situation 
     involving chemical weapons of mass destruction. Department of 
     Defense resources, including personnel of the Department of 
     Defense, may be used to provide such assistance if--
       ``(A) the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General 
     determine that an emergency situation involving chemicals 
     weapons of mass destruction exists; and
       ``(B) the Secretary of Defense determines that the 
     provision of such assistance will not adversely affect the 
     military preparedness of the United States.
       ``(2) as used in this section. `emergency situation 
     involving chemical weapons of mass destruction' means a 
     circumstance involving a chemical weapon of mass 
     destruction--

[[Page S3379]]

       ``(A) that poses a serious threat to the interests of the 
     United States; and
       ``(B) in which--
       ``(i) civilian expertise is not readily available to 
     provide the required assistance to counter the threat posed 
     by the chemical weapon of mass destruction involved;
       ``(ii) Department of Defense special capabilities and 
     expertise are needed to counter the threat posed by the 
     biological weapon of mass destruction involved; and
       ``(iii) enforcement of the law would be seriously impaired 
     if the Department of Defense assistance were not provided.
       ``(3) The assistance referred to in paragraph (1) includes 
     the operation of equipment (including equipment made 
     available under section 372 of title 10) to monitor, contain, 
     disable, or dispose of a chemical weapon of mass destruction 
     or elements of the weapon.
       ``(4) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense 
     shall jointly issue regulations concerning the types of 
     assistance that may be provided under this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall also describe the actions that Department 
     of Defense personnel may take in circumstances incident to 
     the provision of assistance under this subsection. Such 
     regulations shall not authorize arrest or any direct 
     participation in conducting searches and seizures that seek 
     evidence related to violations of this section, except for 
     the immediate protection of human life, unless participation 
     in such activity is otherwise authorized under paragraph (3) 
     or other applicable law.
       ``(5) The Secretary of Defense shall require reimbursement 
     as a condition for providing assistance under this subsection 
     in accordance with section 377 of title 10.
       ``(6)(A) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the 
     Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General may exercise 
     the authority of the Attorney General under this subsection. 
     The Attorney General may delegate the Attorney General's 
     authority under this subsection only to the Associate 
     Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General and only if 
     the Associate Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General 
     to whom delegated has been designated by the Attorney General 
     to act for, and to exercise the general powers of, the 
     Attorney General.
       ``(B) Except to the extent otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense may 
     exercise the authority of the Secretary of Defense under this 
     subsection. The Secretary of Defense may delegate the 
     Secretary's authority under this subsection only to an Under 
     Secretary of Defense or an Assistant Secretary of Defense and 
     only if the Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary to whom 
     delegated has been designated by the Secretary to act for, 
     and to exercise the general powers of, the Secretary.
       ``(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit 
     the authority of the executive branch in the use of military 
     personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes 
     beyond that provided by law before the date of enactment of 
     [the Act].''.
       (c)(1) Civilian Expertise.--The President shall take 
     reasonable measures to reduce civilian law enforcement 
     officials' reliance on Department of Defense resources to 
     counter the threat posed by the use or potential use of 
     biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction within 
     the United States, including--
       (A) increasing civilian law enforcement expertise to 
     counter such threat;
       (B) improving coordination between civilian law enforcement 
     officials and other civilian sources of expertise, both 
     within and outside the Federal Government, to counter such 
     threat.
       (2) Report requirement.--The President Shall Submit to the 
     Congress--
       (A) ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     report describing the respective policy functions and 
     operational roles of Federal agencies in countering the 
     threat posed by the use or potential use of biological and 
     chemical weapons of mass destruction within the United 
     States.
       (B) one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     report describing the actions planned to be taken and the 
     attendant cost pertaining to paragraph (1); and
       (C) three years after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     report updating the information provided in the reports 
     submitted pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B), including 
     measures taken pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (D) Clerical amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 2332a the following:
       ``2332b. Use of chemical weapons.''.
       (e) Use of weapons of mass destruction.--Section 2332a(a) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``without lawful authority'' after ``A person who''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
antiterrorism bill. In my view, this bill strikes a reasonable balance 
between the needs of the law enforcement and national security 
communities and the constitutional rights of the American people. I 
applaud the efforts of Senator Hatch and other conferees in crafting 
this important and much-needed piece of legislation.
  Perhaps one of the more important provisions of this bill relates to 
restitution to victims of crime in Federal courts. I am proud to say 
that key provisions of S. 1404, the Victim Restitution Enhancement Act 
of 1995, which I introduced on November 8, 1995, with Senator Kyl, have 
been incorporated into the conference report. This bill, I believe, 
provides victims of crime with a valuable and important way of 
vindicating their rights and obtaining restitution. S. 1404 provides 
that court orders requiring restitution will act as a lien which the 
victims themselves can enforce. I think this lets victims help 
themselves and ensures that crime victims will receive the restitution 
they are entitled to.
  To understand why giving victims of Federal crimes the ability to 
seek restitution from their victimizers is a positive development, you 
need to understand the nature of most of the Federal crimes which give 
rise to restitution liability. Federal Crimes, by and large, are not 
crimes of violence like State crimes are. Once you exclude Federal drug 
prosecutions--which do not give rise to restitution liability as that 
term is generally understood--many Federal prosecutions are for fraud 
and other so-called white crimes. With fraud and white collar crimes, 
the victims may have substantial resources. These persons may wish to 
obtain restitution themselves, rather than relying on overworked 
prosecutors to do that job. That's what the lien does, its gives 
victims a powerful tool use to get restitution.
  With respect to terrorism, and the Oklahoma City bombing, this means 
that the families of the bombing victims can seek restitution. So if 
the bombers come into money from any source, the victims' families can 
receive restitution. This is very positive development.
  How does the current bill, like S. 1404, do this? Section 206(m) of 
the conference report establishes a lien in favor of crime victims, 
very similar to the lien procedure contained in S. 1404. I believe that 
this section will prove to be of enormous value.
  Also, the conference report, section 206(n), drew on provisions in S. 
1404, which provided that should prisoners who have been ordered to pay 
restitution file a prisoner lawsuit and receive a windfall, that 
windfall will go to the victims and not to the prisoner. This should 
take some of the lure out of prisoner lawsuits. Importantly, the 
conference report we are debating today also provides that windfalls 
received by prisoners from all sources, including lawsuits, will go to 
pay victims.
  This conference report, in section 206(d)(3), like S. 1404, requires 
criminals to list all their assets under oath. This way, if criminals 
who owe victims try to hide their assets, they can be prosecuted for 
perjury. This too should help make sure that victims receive more of 
what they are entitled to.
  While the restitution provisions of this bill are an important step 
in the right direction, I would also like to point out that unlike S. 
1404, the conference report does not establish a hard-and-fast time 
limit within which restitution liability must be paid off. I think that 
this is a serious shortcoming. Without a bright-line for the payment of 
restitution, well-financed criminal defense lawyers will use legal 
technicalities to delay payment as long as possible. The reason that no 
definite time limit was included is that some Members of the minority 
opposed a definite time limit. So, in this respect, I believe that S. 
1404 is superior to the current bill.
  The conference report also makes serious and much-needed reforms of 
habeas corpus prisoner appeals. As even a casual observer of the 
criminal justice system knows, criminals have abused habeas corpus to 
delay just punishment.
  I believe that this conference report strikes exactly the right 
balance on habeas corpus reform. It provides enough in the way of 
habeas appeals to ensure that unjustly convicted people will have a 
fair and full opportunity to bring forth new evidence or contest their 
incarceration in numerous ways. But the conference report sets 
meaningful limits, which should go a long way toward eliminating many 
of the flagrant abuses that make a mockery of justice.
  If we do not pass this bill, with this habeas corpus reform package, 
we can pretend that we are for the death penalty. But, in reality, the 
death penalty will be virtually meaningless and

[[Page S3380]]

toothless. The families of the bombing victims in Oklahoma City know 
this, and they support this bill.
  Let us not get ourselves in the position of making mere symbolic 
gestures, which do not really help the American people and which do not 
really restore faith in the justice system. I agree with President 
Clinton: Punishment should be swift and sure. Just punishment must be 
meted out in an appropriate amount of time.
  I strongly support these reforms, and again applaud the conferees for 
bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on S. 735, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. I would 
like to congratulate Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden, and the other 
Senate conferees on both sides of the aisle for their diligent work in 
conference with the other body. This bill left the Senate June 7, 1995, 
having passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 91 to 8. Then the 
bill went over to the House, where it languished for 9 months. When it 
finally came up in the House for a vote on March 13, the most important 
anti-terrorism provisions were stripped from the bill.
  When this occurred, many of us who strongly supported the Senate bill 
were dismayed and wondered whether it would even be possible for a 
conference committee to fashion a final bill that would garner the 
strong bipartisan support that the original Senate bill enjoyed. To 
emphasize the importance of this bipartisan support, I joined with 
Senator Lieberman on March 29, in sending a letter to all five Senate 
conferees urging that they work to defend in conference key Senate 
provisions dealing with international terrorism. These included 
authority to exclude from the United States members of terrorist groups 
and authority to prohibit terrorist fundraising within the United 
States, both of which were indeed retained in this final conference 
report.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to support this conference report, and I 
heartily congratulate our conferees for preserving these provisions. In 
fact, they went even further, and have given us a strong, positive 
antiterrorism bill that deserves our wholehearted support.
  This legislation contains a broad range of needed changes in the law 
that will enhance our country's ability to combat terrorism, both at 
home and from abroad. The managers of this bill have described its 
provisions in some detail, so I will not repeat their comments. 
Briefly, however, this bill would increase penalties: For conspiracies 
involving explosives, for terrorist conspiracies, for terrorist crimes, 
for transferring explosives, for using explosives, and for other crimes 
related to terrorist acts.
  The bill also includes provisions to combat international terrorism, 
to remove from the United States aliens found to be engaging in or 
supporting terrorist acts, to control fundraising by foreign terrorist 
organizations, and procedural changes to strengthen our 
counterterrorism laws.
  This legislation will enhance the ability of our law enforcement 
agencies to bring terrorists to justice, in a manner mindful of our 
cherished civil liberties. This bill will enact practical measures to 
impede the efforts of those violent rejectionists who have launched an 
unprecedented campaign of terror intended to crush the prospects for 
peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Most important is the 
provision in this bill that will cut off the ability of terrorist 
groups such as Hamas to raise huge sums in the United States for 
supposedly ``humanitarian'' purposes, where in reality a large part of 
those funds go toward conducting terrorist activities. These 
accomplishments are real, and this legislation deserves our support.
  Mr. President, I would like to concentrate the remainder of my 
comments on two provisions of mine that were retained in this 
conference report. These two provisions are the Terrorist Exclusion Act 
and the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Sources Protection Act, both 
of which I introduced separately last year.
  Traditionally, Americans have thought of terrorism as primarily a 
European, Middle Eastern, or Latin American problem. While Americans 
abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities have been targets in the past, 
Americans have often considered the United States itself largely immune 
to acts of terrorism. Two events have changed this sense of safety. The 
first was the internationally-sponsored terrorist attack of February 
26, 1993 against the New York World Trade Center, and the second was 
the domestic terrorist attack just a year ago on April 19 in Oklahoma 
City.
  I first introduced the Terrorist Exclusion Act in the House three 
years ago, and last year I reintroduced the legislation in the Senate 
with Senator Brown as my original cosponsor. The Terrorist Exclusion 
Act will close a dangerous loophole in our visa laws which was created 
by the Immigration Reform Act of 1990. With its rewrite of the 
McCarran-Walters Act, Congress eliminated then-existing authority to 
deny a U.S. visa to a known member of a violent terrorist organization.
  The new standards required knowledge that the individual had been 
personally involved in a past terrorist act or was coming to the United 
States to conduct such an act. This provision will restore the previous 
standard allowing denial of a U.S. visa for membership in a terrorist 
group.
  I discovered this dangerous weakness in our visa laws in early 1993 
during my investigation of the State Department failures that allowed 
the radical Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to travel to, 
and reside in, the United States since 1990. I undertook this 
investigation in my role as ranking Republican of the House 
International Operations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over 
terrorism issues, a role I have continued in the Senate as Chair of the 
International Operations Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations 
Committee.
  Sheikh Rahman is the spiritual leader of Egypt's terrorist 
organization, The Islamic Group. His followers were convicted for the 
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The Sheikh himself 
received a life sentence for his own role in approving a planned second 
wave of terrorist acts in the New York City area.
  The case of Sheikh Abdel Rahman is significant because he was clearly 
excludable from the United States under the pre-1990 law, but the legal 
authority to exclude him ended with enactment of the Immigration Reform 
Act that year. He was admitted to this country through an amazing 
series of bureaucratic blunders.
  Then in 1990, as the U.S. government was building its deportation 
case against him, the law changed. As a result, the State Department 
was forced to try to deport him on the grounds that he once bounced a 
check in Egypt and had more than one wife, rather than the fact that he 
was the known spiritual leader of a violent terrorist organization.
  A high-ranking State Department official informed my staff during my 
investigation that if Sheikh Abdel Rahman had tried to enter after the 
1990 law went into affect, they would have had no legal authority to 
exclude him from the United States because they had no proof that he 
had ever personally committed a terrorist act, despite the fact that 
his followers were known to have been involved in the assassination of 
Anwar Sadat.
  It is urgent that we pass this provision. Every day in this country 
American lives are put at risk out of deference to some imagined first 
amendment rights of foreign terrorists. This is an extreme 
misinterpretation of our cherished Bill of Rights, which the founders 
of our nation intended to protect the liberties of all Americans.
  In my reading of the U.S. Constitution, I see much about the 
protection of the safety and welfare of Americans, but nothing about 
protecting the rights of foreign terrorists to travel freely to the 
United States whenever they choose.
  The second of my bills contained in S. 735 is the Law Enforcement and 
Intelligence Sources Protection Act. This legislation would 
significantly increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies to share information with the State Department for the purpose 
of denying visas to known terrorists, drug traffickers, and others 
involved in international criminal activities.
  This provision would permit a U.S. visa to be denied for law 
enforcement purposes without a detailed written explanation, which 
current law requires.

[[Page S3381]]

 These denials could be made citing U.S. law generically, without 
further clarification or amplification. Individuals who are denied 
visas due to the suspicion that they are intending to immigrate to the 
U.S. would still have to be informed that this is the basis, and they 
would then be allowed to compile additional information that may change 
that determination.
  Under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a precise 
written justification, citing the specific provision of law, is 
required for every alien denied a U.S. visa. This requirement was 
inserted into the INA out of the belief that every non-American denied 
a U.S.-visa for any reason had the right to know the precise grounds 
under which the visa was denied, even if it was for terrorist activity, 
narcotics trafficking, or other illegal acts. This has impeded the 
willing- ness of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share 
with the State Department the names of excludable aliens.
  These agencies are logically concerned about revealing sources or 
compromising an investigation by submitting the names of people known 
to be terrorists or criminals--but who do not know that they are under 
investigation by U.S. officials--if that information is then revealed 
to a visa applicant, as current law requires. This is information the 
United States should be able to protect until a case is completed and, 
hopefully, law enforcement action is taken. But for the protection of 
the American people we should also make this information available to 
the Department of State to keep these individuals out of our country.
  Mr. President, I again congratulate Chairman Hatch, and all of the 
other Senate conferees on this bill for their achievements in 
negotiations with the House. Obviously, there were some Senate 
provisions that had strong bipartisan support in this body that I 
regret could not be sustained in conference. But I urge my colleagues 
to concentrate on the very substantial and important achievements of 
this conference report, and I urge broad bipartisan support for its 
adoption.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I wonder if the Senator might yield for a question before 
the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his quorum call?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes. I am happy to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am a little confused why we do not vote on this motion 
right now. Everybody is familiar with the issue.
  Mr. HATCH. I think we are but the majority leader asked me to put the 
quorum call.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I safely say that, if things go right, we are going 
to vote in a very few minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. I hope so. I think so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to 
recommit, by the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the motion and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
consideration of the conference report to accompany the terrorist bill, 
the time on the conference report be limited to 20 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form, and all motions to recommit be limited to 
the following time restraints; that they be relevant in subject matter 
of the conference report or Senate- or House-passed bills and that they 
not be subject to amendments: 30 minutes equally divided in the usual 
form on each motion.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of all 
motions to recommit, if defeated or tabled, the Senate proceed to vote 
on adoption of the conference report, all without any intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the 
Biden motion to recommit.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and 
the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is 
absent due to death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Alaska, [Mr. Murkowski] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hatfield
     Mack
     Murkowski
     Murray
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________