[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3454-S3478]
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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I offer a motion to recommit the conference 
report with instructions to add provisions on wiretap authority for 
terrorism crimes. I send the motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] moves 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.   . AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS IN 
                   CERTAIN TERRORISM RELATED OFFENSES.

       Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (c)--
       (A) by inserting before ``or section 1992 (relating to 
     wrecking trains)'' the following: ``section 2332 (relating to 
     terrorist acts abroad), section 2332a (relating to weapons of 
     mass destruction, section 2332b (relating to acts of 
     terrorism transcending national boundaries), section 2339A 
     (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 
     section 37 (relating to violence at international 
     airports),''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``section 175 (relating to 
     biological weapons),'' the following: ``or a felony violation 
     under section 1028 (relating to production of false 
     identification documentation), sections 1541, 1542, 1543, 
     1544, and 1546 (relating to passport and visa offenses),''; 
     (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (o), as so 
     redesignated by section 512(a)(2);
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by 
     section 512(a)(2), as paragraph (s); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (o), as so redesignated by 
     section 512(a)(2), the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(p) any violation of section 956 or section 960 of title 
     18, United States Code (relating to certain actions against 
     foreign nations);
       ``(q) any violation of section 46502 of title 49, United 
     States Code; and''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
within my allotted time.
  Mr. President, before I begin on this amendment, I want to just tell 
you, and all of my colleagues who may be listening back in the offices, 
that while the last vote was going on a colleague of ours, Senator 
Wendell Ford, came to the floor and said, ``Let me show you something 
my staff just downloaded from the Internet.'' While you were all voting 
on whether or not to prohibit people from being able to teach people 
how to make bombs knowing or intending they be used to violate the law, 
let me read what was downloaded. This is roughly at 3:20 p.m. today.

       Attention all Unabomber wannabes. You will first have to 
     make a mild version of thermite. Use my recipe but substitute 
     iron filings for rust. Mix the iron with aluminum filings in 
     a ratio of 75 percent aluminum, 25 percent iron. This mixture 
     will burn violently in a closed space (such as an envelope). 
     This brings us to the next ingredient. Go to the post office 
     and buy an insulated (padded) envelope. You know, the type 
     that is double layered. Separate the layers and place the 
     mild thermite in the main section where the letter would go. 
     Then place magnesium powder in the outer layer. There is your 
     bomb!!
       Now to light it. This is the tricky part, and hard to 
     explain.

  I am still quoting now.

       Just keep experimenting until you get something that works. 
     The fuse is just that torch explosive I have told you about 
     in another one of my anarchy files. You might want to wrap it 
     like a long cigarette, then place it at the top of the 
     envelope in the outer layer (on top of the powdered 
     magnesium). When the torch explosive is torn, or even 
     squeezed hard, it will ignite the powdered magnesium (sort of 
     a flash light) and then it will burn the mild thermite. If 
     the thermite did not blow up, it would at least burn your 
     enemy (it does wonders on human flesh).

  You all just voted to keep that legal--to keep that legal--because of 
the fear, apparently, or concern that we would not be able to convince 
35 recalcitrant House Members to make that illegal. That is what you 
did. That is what you did.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record along with 
the baby food bomb by Warmaster, also taken off the Internet.
  For all of you who are concerned about the pornography on the 
Internet, as I am, how do you explain banning that, which we should, 
and not this? Pornography deforms the mind. These bombs burn the flesh.
  I ask unanimous consent that these recipes available to our children 
and the demented people out there in the public, the few that exist, be 
printed in the Record to know what we have just done.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Attention All Unabomber Wannabes

       You will first have to make a mild version of thermite. Use 
     my recipe, but substitute iron fillings for rust. Mix the 
     iron with aluminum fillings in a ratio of 75% aluminum to 25% 
     iron. This mixture will burn violently in a closed space 
     (such as an envelope). This brings us to our next ingredient. 
     Go to the post office and buy an insulated (padded) envelope. 
     You know, the type that is double layered. Separate the 
     layers and place the mild thermite in the main section, where 
     the letter would go. Then place magnesium powder in the outer 
     layer. There is your bomb!! Now to light it . . . this is the 
     tricky part and hard to explain. Just keep experimenting 
     until you get something that works. The fuse is just that 
     touch explosive I have told you about in another one of my 
     anarchy files. You might want to wrap it like a long 
     cigarette and then place it at the top of the envelope in the 
     outer layer (on top of the powdered magnesium). When the 
     touch explosive is torn or even squeezed hard it will ignite 
     the powdered magnesium (sort of a flash light) and then it 
     will burn the mild thermite. If the thermite didn't blow up, 
     it would at least burn your enemy (it does wonders on human 
     flesh!).
                                                                    ____


                             Babyfood Bombs

                             (By Warmaster)

       These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even 
     though all the materials can be easily obtained by anyone 
     (including minors). These things are so powerful that they 
     can DESTROY a car. The explosion can actually twist and 
     mangle the frame. They are extremely deadly and can very 
     easily kill you and blow the side of the house out if you 
     mess up while building it. Here's how they work.
       Go to Sports Authority or Hermans sport shop and buy 
     shotgun shells. It is by the hunting section. 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.
       Now for the hard part:
       You must cut open the plastic housing of the bullet to get 
     to the sweet nectar that is the gunpowder. The place where 
     you cut it is CRUCIAL. It means the difference between it 
     blowing up in your face or not.
       You must not make the cut directly where the gunpowder is 
     or it will explode. You

[[Page S3455]]

     must cut it where the pellets are. When you cut through it, 
     empty the pellets out and the white stuff (called buffer) 
     that surrounds the pellets. There is a layer of wadding that 
     separates the gunpowder from the pellets and that must be cut 
     through VERY CAREFULLY! Don't use a drill! Whatever 
     instrument you use (knife, screwdriver, etc.) you must work 
     very slowly and don't make big movements. Friction can set it 
     off. You now have a nice supply of gunpowder.
       I have also tried this with Quail Shot. The only difference 
     between buck and quail is that quail has very small pellets 
     and buck has big ones.
       It is strange but almost all shotgun shells have a 
     different interior. Some have very powdery powder and some 
     have flakes for powder. Also some have plastic wadding and 
     some have cardboard. Usually the smaller the pellets the less 
     gunpowder and more cardboard wadding. The smaller pellet 
     sizes are the ones with the flakes. Also that white stuff 
     called buffer is only used in heavy buckshot and is not found 
     in Quail and Dove shot or other bullets with small pellets.
       [Contents deleted from original.]
       I would like to stress once again that this is EXTREMELY 
     dangerous and can very easily kill you. I've done this once 
     and it scared the------out of me and I am never doing it 
     again. These are very destructive. If you are stupid enough 
     to do it, wear two or three pairs of safety glasses and thick 
     clothes to protect you from the glass. The------can still 
     hurt you from 100 feet away. The blast is also deafening. But 
     if you want to spread some choas, this little bomb is the way 
     to go.
       Did I mention that this is also highly illegal?
       Unimportant stuff that is cool to know:
       They rate shotgun shells by two numbers. Gauge and pellet 
     size. With gauge the smaller the number the bigger the bullet 
     (12 gauge is bigger than 14 or 16 gauge). The biggest I know 
     of is 10 gauge, but that is very hard to find. The other 
     number is the pellet size. The bigger the pellet the less can 
     fit in the bullet. The advantage of a big pellet is that it 
     is more powerful but cover an area very scarcely. The smaller 
     pellets have a much lower velocity but there are many more 
     pellets in the shell. Here is how the system goes: 000 
     buckshot (triple 0) is the very biggest. There are only 10 
     pellets in it but they are huge. Then comes 00, 0, 1, 2, 3, 
     4, 5, 6, 7. Number 7 has about 200 pellets in it. It is used 
     for squirrels and small birds. Generally the 000, 00, 0, 1, 
     2, 3, and 4 have the best powder. Anything higher up has this 
     weird flakey gunpowder that doesn't work so well.
       Some Other Things That Smart People Do That Don't Want To 
     Get Killed:
       Other things you can do with the powder other than use it 
     in a babyfood jar is to use it in a smaller jar. You will get 
     less bang out of it but it is much safer. Some good jars to 
     use are very small makeup jars and those little TESTORS paint 
     bottles. The paint bottles have thick glass and it might be 
     more dangerous. Another thing you can do with the powder is 
     wrap it up tightly in some paper and stick a fuse in it (it 
     is easier to put the fuse in before you wrap the paper).
       Typed by the Warmaster.
       The author accepts no responsibility for any misuse of 
     information in this file. This is for information purposes 
     only, and reading enjoyment only, and is meant to show how at 
     any time any lunatic with a mile long police record can 
     legally make a highly powerful bomb with almost no equipment. 
     The author is not advocating the use of explosives in any 
     way.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what I would like to speak to in an 
indirect way covers this. We have had several votes on wiretaps, and I 
know people are asking why am I introducing the other wiretap provision 
that was taken out of the Senate bill. The reason I am is I refuse to 
believe that, if you all hear this enough, you will not eventually 
decide to do the right thing on this.
  The provision that I have proposed is not original with me. It was in 
the Senate bill that we passed. The provision would add a number--the 
bill we have before us, the conference report--would add a number of 
terrorism-related offenses to the law. I will go into those in a 
minute. What I have sent to the desk, if adopted, would instruct the 
conferees to add the same number of offenses that we are adding to the 
bill, to the law, to those categories of things for which the 
Government, with probable cause, can get a wiretap. It was in the 
Senate bill as introduced by Senators Hatch and Dole. It was part of 
the terrorism bill reported out of Representative Hyde's Judiciary 
Committee. Unfortunately, by the time the bill had made it to the 
House, the provision was dropped.
  I think it is worth talking a moment about how a wiretap statute 
works, the one that is in place now in the law, for it seems there is a 
lot of misunderstanding about it these days. I am repeating myself 
again to eliminate the misunderstanding. As some people tell it, you 
would think the FBI and BATF and the local and State police are tapping 
our phones left and right, that they are riding down the streets in 
vans with electronic devices eavesdropping into our windows and 
houses--which they have the capacity to do, by the way. But that is 
just not the way it works.
  First and foremost, it is not an FBI agent but a U.S. attorney, or 
even the Attorney General herself, who has the power to authorize the 
wiretap. No. Actually, that is not quite true. The ultimate authority 
to issue a wiretap sits only with a Federal judge. The U.S. attorney 
has the power to petition the court for a wiretap, but only a judge, a 
judge who cannot be fired, whose salary cannot be docked by any of us 
in Washington, who cannot be affected in any way, only a judge may 
disagree with something that the Attorney General does or does not do. 
It is that judge who must determine that there is probable cause to 
believe that a specific crime--not a general crime--a specific crime 
has been--not is about to--has been committed; that specific people are 
committing that crime, and that they are doing it at a specific place. 
The affidavit that the U.S. attorney takes to the court, to the judge, 
must also satisfy what is called the necessity requirement. The judge 
must be convinced that other less intrusive investigative procedures 
have been tried and failed--that is infiltration, that is eavesdropping 
in a conversation, walking by, any other method--has to be convinced 
that they have been tried and failed or that they are unlikely to 
succeed in any reasonable circumstance.

  That necessity requirement is meant to ensure that wiretapping is not 
the normal investigative technique, like physical surveillance or the 
use of informants. These are very serious protections, Mr. President. I 
believe that interposing a court between the prosecutor and the wiretap 
is a citizens' best protection.
  But even before we get to the judge who makes his decision, there is 
a very painstaking, stringent process within the Justice Department for 
determining when to seek a court authorization for a wiretap.
  First, the agent in the field, under the supervision of his or her 
supervisor, must write an affidavit, a sworn affidavit, that they must 
sign that sets out all the particular facts relating to probable cause, 
because even if an order is granted based on the agent, if he is lying, 
then that information is gone even if the judge issued the wiretap 
order.
  So, on the front end, you have to have a sworn law enforcement 
officer swear that the information they are writing down as to why they 
think a crime has been committed is true. They are liable. An assistant 
U.S. attorney then must take that affidavit from the FBI agent and 
draft an application and a proposed order for the court to sign. The 
package then must be sent from the U.S. attorney in Wilmington, DE, or 
in Manchester, NH, and sent down to Washington. The U.S. attorney 
cannot just walk into the courtroom of the Federal judge or to any of 
the judges, and say, ``Judge, I want a wiretap.'' They must send it 
down to Washington. Once the package is sent to Washington, the 
Criminal Division of the Justice Department takes a look and 
scrutinizes the affidavit and discusses any necessary changes or 
additions or questions they have with the U.S. attorney that is 
handling the case back in Manchester, Wilmington, or Salt Lake City.
  Then a detailed memorandum summarizing the facts and legal issues and 
addressing the application's compliance with each statutory requirement 
is sent to the Assistant Attorney General. All these materials are then 
sent to the Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General for 
final review and final authorization, and then it is sent back to 
Manchester, sent back to Wilmington, sent back to Salt Lake City. The 
U.S. attorney then petitions the court and then goes in and sees a 
judge.
  This is painstaking. It is time consuming, as well it should be, for 
we want to make sure that wiretaps are used in only the most serious 
cases. We want to make sure that they are used only as a last resort 
when all other less intrusive techniques have failed, and we want to 
make sure that the Government is not making unwarranted intrusions into 
our privacy. But we also

[[Page S3456]]

need to make sure that law enforcement has the tools, if they meet all 
these hurdles, to catch the bad guy.
  Now, this provision that I have offered, that we already voted on, 
will provide an important tool. Let me just point out there is 
currently a very long list of crimes for which a wiretap can be 
authorized. Let me make this point because a lot of nonlawyers or 
people who do not practice criminal law are not aware of this as well.
  You cannot get a wiretap, even if you do all the things I just said, 
unless you turn to the Criminal Code, and you have all these crimes 
listed in the Criminal Code. OK. You may find a crime in one section, 
and then you have to turn to another section, section 251, of the 
Criminal Code entitled, ``Authorization for Interception of Wire, Oral 
or Electronic Communications.'' And then you have to find there in 
subsection (c) the list of offenses for which you can get a wiretap. 
Not every crime is entitled to have a wiretap attached to it.
  So it is a two-step process. First, you have to prove there is a 
crime being committed that is a violation of the Federal law. Second, 
you have to go through all these procedures that I outlined to 
safeguard that it is not willingly used by the Government to intrude on 
your privacy. And then, in that process, you have to make sure it is a 
listed crime for which you can seek a wiretap. OK.
  Now, some of those crimes for which you can seek a wiretap are 
murder, kidnaping, robbery, extortion, bribing public officials, 
witnesses, or bank officials, obstructing justice, criminal 
investigations or law enforcement, all manner of fraud and 
embezzlement, destroying cars, wrecking trains. They are all listed, 
all listed. And this list goes on.
  The provision I am suggesting here does only one minor thing: It 
would add a very serious and potentially deadly terrorism offense to 
that list, including new offenses that are added in this legislation. 
The legislation we are voting on, the conference report is this thing, 
and in here, to the credit of the chairman and I believe to me and 
others who worked on this, we add new crimes, new Federal crimes, 
terrorism crimes for which the Federal Government can go after you if 
you do these bad things. But we miss one important step. We do not take 
these new laws and add them to the list of those things for which you 
can get a wiretap. This would do that, would allow wiretaps with all 
the procedures for the new crimes of terrorism we have in here.

  It is ironic. At first I thought it was an oversight, but obviously 
it is intended that you not be able to use wiretaps to deal with 
terrorism as we outlined in the bill.
  I assume my time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. We have been doing this for a year. We are trying to pass 
a bill here that will make a difference against terrorist crimes. I can 
say categorically that there is virtually always a way to get wiretaps 
if the prosecution wants it, if the law enforcement people want it. To 
just add the word terrorism, that would be efficacious, but it still 
would not stop anybody--if you do not add it, it still would not stop 
anybody from getting the necessary wiretaps in the case of suspected 
terrorists.
  We can overdue these technicalities to the end of the doggone 
Congress. The fact is, this bill contains alien terrorist removal 
provisions that will make a real difference. It contains designation of 
terrorist organizations that we do not have right now, neither of these 
provisions, that will make a real difference today. We have Hamas 
people in this country who want to murder our Jewish citizens, just to 
mention a few. We have Abu Nidal people in this country who want to 
murder our Jewish citizens and others, do anything to disrupt our 
economy. We have other terrorist organizations in this country. We have 
at least 1,500 known terrorists and organizations in this country. And 
we are standing here debating whether or not we should put a word into 
the bill.
  Now, I agree I would love to put it in, but in this year-long set of 
negotiations and work with the other body, they did not want it put in 
that way. They are concerned that we are expanding wiretapping too far. 
It is a legitimate concern.

  This world is turned upside down. When I got here 20 years ago, the 
conservatives wanted the wiretapping because they wanted to stop all 
crimes. The liberals did not want it because they were concerned about 
civil liberties. I can remember the battles we had in the Judiciary 
Committee, and they were heated and intense.
  Today, it is the opposite. The conservatives, some conservatives, 
especially those on the far right--and I might add, the far left 
liberals still do not want wiretapping, but the far right conservatives 
are concerned because they feel like justice went awry in Waco and Ruby 
Ridge, the Good Ol' Boys roundup and other matters. Those are 
legitimate concerns that they bring.
  Let me just say this. I would not mind putting this in the bill if I 
could at this point, but I cannot and still have a bill. We have a bill 
that has alien terrorist removal provisions. It would help this country 
all over the world. It would help other countries all over the world. 
Designation of terrorist organizations, we start to put a stop to 
terrorist organizations. It would certainly stop the fundraising. We 
have language that will stop the raising of funds in the United States 
of America that are sponsoring terrorism all over this world.
  These are big provisions. These are things that can make a 
difference. We can get around these other technicalities, and we can 
get wiretaps if we need them. But we cannot get these things without 
this bill.
  Summary exclusion of alien terrorists, we have a right to do it 
because of this bill. These were provisions we had to fight to get back 
into the bill that we had written in the Senate, provisions that will 
make a difference, not some technicality that is important and I would 
like to have in, that the Senator from Delaware would like to have in, 
and rightly so. I do not have any problem with that. We have not been 
able to get those technicalities in, but there are ways around those 
technicalities today without having them in. There are no ways around 
these provisions, none. We cannot do these things without this bill. 
Without this bill we could not stop many major terrorist problems in 
this country that could happen in the future.
  We have language in here on biological weaponry, something that is 
critical. Every one of us is concerned about that, and rightly so. We 
succeeded in getting the House to tighten up and toughen up those 
provisions dealing with the transportation and sale of human biological 
agents. That needs to be done. We should not wait a day longer; we 
should not wait an hour longer to get that done. We have criminal alien 
removal procedures. When these criminal aliens get convicted, the 
minute their sentence is over, they are moved. We get them out of this 
country so they cannot just waltz out of the jail and go and start 
doing further terrorist activities.

  We have $1 billion in authorization money in this bill, to go to work 
tomorrow, if we pass this bill and as soon as the President signs it, 
to go to work to fight against this terrorist activity.
  We have language in here that goes a long way toward tagging 
explosives. I could go on and on. I could talk for 4 or 5 hours on what 
is in this bill and why it is going to make a difference against 
terrorism.
  I have to say my colleague from Delaware deserves his reputation as a 
very fine lawyer and somebody who is bringing up very good points here. 
Most of the language he has brought up, I wrote. Naturally, some of it 
I would like to have in the bill. But we can get around most of those 
problems with current criminal law. We cannot get around these problems 
I am discussing with regard to terrorism.
  Let me just say on wiretapping alone, just so people understand how 
serious this is, in 18 United States Code, section 2518, it says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any 
     investigative or law enforcement officer, [any, by the way] 
     specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy 
     Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General or by the 
     principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision

[[Page S3457]]

     thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who 
     reasonably determines that--
       (a) an emergency situation exists that involves--
       (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to 
     any person,
       (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national 
     security interest, or
       (iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized 
     crime,
       that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to 
     be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception 
     can, with due diligence, be obtained. . . .

  I would like all this clarifying language in. I would not mind having 
it. We had it in the Senate bill and we have worked for a year to try 
to get it back in and almost every major, big provision we have gotten 
back in. Some of this we have not. But we have ways to get around those 
problems.
  I will repeat it. Talking in real terms, realistically, there is 
always a way to do it if it has to be done, to get a wiretap. But there 
is not always a way to remove terrorist aliens. There is not a way 
right now to designate terrorist organizations as terrorists and to 
start branding them for what they are all over the world and start 
using the force of American power and law against them. There is no 
real way to stop fundraising today for terrorist organizations in this 
country.

  I might say there is no summary exclusion of alien terrorists today. 
We do not have any aspects against biological weapons.
  I was the one who held the hearing just a month or so ago, showing 
where you could get--anybody if they were clever enough, could get 
human pathogens that could cause major diseases all over this country.
  I might add, we do not have any current criminal alien removal 
procedures. This bill grants all of that.
  We do not have habeas corpus reform, death penalty reform in this 
country. That alone, the people who have suffered, the victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing would be enough to justify this bill. But I am 
giving you big-time stuff that will make a difference against 
terrorism. These other matters, we can get around those in most 
instances.
  I am telling you, I will just say one other thing. I am committing 
right here on the floor today I will do everything in my power, as 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as one of 100 Senators here, to 
try to correct some of these matters in the future, after we have these 
studies that help us to know how to correct them and after we can get 
rid of some of these perceptions that law enforcement is too intrusive 
and is not protective of the civil rights and liberties of people in 
this country.
  I believe it is. I believe our law enforcement people are the best in 
the world. We have occasional mistakes, but I think the FBI is the best 
in the world. I think our Justice Department is the best in the world. 
I think ATF does a very good job and they are cleaning up a lot of 
problems that have existed in the past in the eyes of most people who 
own guns in this country, and they are doing it, I think, in an 
expeditious and good way. I am proud of the law enforcement in this 
country. I want to give them the tools and I want to work hard to make 
sure we have them. But we have to give them these tools now. We have to 
start fighting terrorism, instead of really babbling, here, on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The longer we go the more difficult it is to get this through over in 
the House. If we change one word of this and go back to conference, I 
can tell you right now we are in danger of losing the bill. So, sure I 
can improve any bill. Just make me a dictator and let me write whatever 
I want to and I guarantee you it will be perfect. At least that is the 
idea of some people in this body. But we have to live in the real world 
of bringing 100 Senators, 435 Representatives--535 minds together and, 
by gosh, we have done a pretty good job.

  When the Senator read the Internet bomb description, had his idea--
and I might add even I would agree with the idea--been the law, he 
might have been in violation of his own law. The fact of the matter is, 
there are still ways of getting around that problem. We can go after 
bomb makers, under this bill. We can make a difference.
  I just wanted to mention a few things that we are really fighting for 
here, major issues, major issues that can help us against crime, 
against terrorism, that will help to prevent future terrorist 
activities. Do we have everything in this bill? I said from the 
beginning, no, we do not, because we have to bring together at least 
half of the 535 people serving in both Houses of Congress. But we have 
a lot of things in this bill I never thought we would get there, 
through 535 people. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that both 
Republicans and Democrats have fashioned. Frankly, I am proud of it and 
I would like to get about passing it.
  In that regard, then, on behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to 
table the Senator's motion and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I make a suggestion? There are several 
colleagues who apparently will have difficulty getting here in the next 
5 minutes for this vote. Senator Kennedy is on the floor, ready to 
proceed with an amendment. Maybe we could just stack the two? I have 
been opposing stacking them all day.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we stack the next 
two votes to occur immediately after the time expires on Senator 
Kennedy's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 60 seconds on the bill. I 
have two responses.
  My distinguished and able colleague has mixed up apples and oranges 
here. The section he read from the wiretap statute related to emergency 
wiretaps that do not require a court order at the front end.

  What we are talking about are wiretaps where they want to go in and 
we want to prove they have probable cause to get the wiretap in the 
first case.
  Second, I agree with everything that he says about the good parts of 
the bill. They were in the same bill I introduced, most of those 
things. I am for them. But the problem is, he mentioned there are 1,500 
terrorists out there, or whatever the number. Under the bill now we 
create a new crime relating to providing material support for 
terrorists, if you send money to Hamas and provide material support or 
an automobile or a train ticket or whatever it is, and it is not a 
crime. It is a Federal crime now, but one for which you cannot get a 
wiretap. That seems to make no sense to me and that is why I have 
introduced this amendment.
  I yield the floor to my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if my friend from Massachusetts will just 
allow me to respond for 15 seconds, I will just make the statement 
again. Realistically, in this real world, if law enforcement wants to 
get a wiretap, whether emergency or otherwise, it is going to be able 
to get it. That has been my experience and I think it has been the 
experience of every prosecutor, I think, in this country.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself 15 more seconds on the bill. That is the 
very thing we do not want to happen. We want prosecutors to operate 
under the law. We do not want to further ignite the imagination of 
those folks over in the House. We want them to do it by the numbers, 
not with imagination.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would just add, they will do it by the 
law, but realistically they can do it. I have also said that I will 
work with the distinguished Senator from Delaware to try to resolve 
these problems in a formal bill in the future, as we examine this more 
carefully. I think we can do that job. But it is misleading, to think 
the American people are not going to be protected, from a wiretap 
standpoint, when I know the law enforcement officials can use wiretaps 
and can get them, realistically, in almost every situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
on the conference report without the time being charged to the 
remaining 20 minutes of the general debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

[[Page S3458]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a year since the tragic bombing of 
the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and 10 months since the Senate 
passed a bill to give Federal law enforcement agencies the effective 
assistance they need to deal with these crimes.
  Unfortunately, the conference report before us is a far weaker bill 
than the measure we passed last year. All that is left now is the 
hollow shell of a terrorism bill, a mockery of the strong bipartisan 
legislation passed by the Senate. Most of the meaningful antiterrorism 
measures passed by the Senate have been stripped out by the House, so 
that this bill is far less likely to deter terrorist crimes or aid in 
the apprehension of terrorists.
  Using the phony label of antiterrorism, the bill achieves two 
reprehensible goals: it denies meaningful habeas corpus review to State 
death row inmates, and it makes it easier to turn away refugees and 
victims of political persecution from America's shores.
  Everyone knows what happened to this bill. It fell victim to the 
anti-Government assault of the National Rifle Association. After the 
Senate passed a tough, effective terrorism bill, the NRA stepped in and 
prevented House action for months. Then the NRA's supporters in the 
House stripped the bill of key provisions to strengthen Federal law 
enforcement.
  As a result of the NRA's maneuvering, the conference report before us 
is completely inadequate to meet the needs of law enforcement. The 
Senate still has a chance to insist on a real terrorism bill, and not a 
sham bill. We should send this bill back to conference, and insist that 
the conferees restore the tough Senate provisions.
  There are numerous glaring gaps in the conference report:
  It does not include the expanded wiretapping authority that the FBI 
has said is necessary to keep up with current telecommunications 
technology.
  It does not address the dangerous reality that bomb-making 
information is now freely disseminated on the Internet.
  It does not include a Senate-passed provision extending the statute 
of limitations for serious firearms offenses.
  It does not include a necessary exception to the posse comitatus laws 
so that military experts can provide technical assistance to law 
enforcement in terrorist attacks involving chemical or biological 
warfare.
  Each of these measures was included in the Senate bill, but has been 
stripped out of the conference report at the insistence of the NRA.
  And while the bill is clearly deficient in these respects, it 
includes other provisions that are too extreme in limiting the rights 
and liberties of individuals:
  It eviscerates the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying death row 
inmates the opportunity to obtain even one meaningful Federal review of 
the constitutionality of their convictions.
  It returns to the discredited cold war guilt-by-association policy of 
the McCarran-Walter law, excluding individuals from our shores based on 
mere membership in an organization. Current law already contains 
authority to exclude members of known terrorist organizations. The far 
broader sweep of this bill is unnecessary and excessive.
  It places excessive restrictions on the ability of refugees to obtain 
asylum in the United States. This provision was never considered by the 
full Senate, and it ought to be debated on the immigration bill, not 
the terrorism legislation.
  Mr. President, I point out here what has been happening. Asylum 
claims decline 57 percent as productivity doubles in 1995. What we have 
seen is the dramatic reduction in terms of the asylum claims. In 1994, 
there were 122,000; 60,000 completed.
  In 1995, 53,000; 126,000 were completed. The Justice Department has a 
handle on this issue. It is doing it in a conscientious, fair, and 
disciplined way, and we ought to retain it and not be caught up with 
other facts and figures.
  Every omnibus bill requires Members of Congress to weigh the good 
provisions against the bad ones. I voted for the Senate bill even 
though it included the objectionable limits on habeas corpus. But the 
balance has changed, now that the Senate bill has been seriously 
weakened. There is too little to place on the scale against the 
shameful trashing of the writ of habeas corpus and the Nation's asylum 
system.
  It is unfortunate that the unrelated and controversial subject of 
habeas corpus was injected into this bill in the first place. 
Proponents say that habeas corpus is relevant because the suspects in 
the Oklahoma City bombing are charged with a Federal capital offense. 
But that fact is no justification for changing the rules with regard to 
State prisoners.
  The habeas corpus proposals do not strike a fair balance. The bill 
denies death row inmates a full opportunity to raise claims of 
innocence based on newly discovered evidence. It will therefore 
increase the likelihood that innocent people will be executed. The 
proposal to limit inmates to one bite at the apple is sound in 
principle. But surely the interest in swift executions must yield to 
new evidence that an innocent person is about to be put to death. As 
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once wrote, ``Swift justice 
demands more than just swiftness.''
  Also, the proposal would unwisely require Federal courts to defer to 
State courts on issues of Federal constitutional law. A Federal court 
could not grant a writ habeas corpus based on Federal constitutional 
claims, unless the State court's judgment was ``an unreasonable 
application of Federal law.''
  It is a serious mistake to require a Federal court to defer to the 
judgment of a State court on matters of Federal constitutional law. The 
notion that a Federal court should be prevented from correcting a 
constitutional error because it was a reasonable error is unacceptable, 
especially in a capital case. Ever since the days of Chief Justice John 
Marshall, the Federal courts have served as the great defenders of 
constitutional protections, and they should remain so.
  The asylum provisions in this bill are equally misguided.
  The Senate-passed bill did not address this subject, because it is 
more appropriately dealt with as part of immigration reform. But the 
conferees adopted House-passed language that drastically limits the 
ability of refugees to claim asylum if they arrive without proper 
documents. This provision undermines the fundamental treaty obligations 
of the United States by subjecting legitimate refugees to persecution 
and even torture.
  It is often impossible for asylum seekers fleeing persecution to 
obtain a valid passport or travel document before they leave. Even the 
effort to obtain a travel document from the same government that is the 
persecutor may result in further danger to the asylum seeker. People 
may die or may be tortured while waiting for the proper papers. 
Accepting this reality, the U.N. High Commission on Refugees has 
recognized that circumstances may compel a refugee to use fraudulent 
documents to escape persecution.
  This fact has long been recognized under international law. The 
United States has international obligations to protect refugees and 
asylum seekers who use fraudulent documents to escape persecution 
abroad. Article 31 of the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of 
Refugees imposes an obligation on the United States not to penalize 
refugees and asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution, and who 
present fraudulent documents or no documents at all.
  Under current practice, when asylum seekers arrive in the United 
States without valid travel documents or a passport, they are placed in 
detention. Generally, they are released from detention only if an 
asylum prescreening officer believes they have a sound case. That is 
the dramatic change in the way the Justice Department is considering 
the asylum seekers at the present time and how they were considered a 
number of months ago. Otherwise, they must pursue their asylum claim 
while in detention.
  The pending bill significantly changes this process. It gives the 
prescreening officer the authority to deport an asylum seeker who 
enters with false or no documents. The office can deport the asylum 
seeker without a full hearing. An immigration judge never sees the 
case. In addition, the asylum seeker has no access to the assistance of 
counsel or even an interpreter.
  As we consider this unprecedented proposal, we should remind 
ourselves of Raoul Wallenberg, the hero who saved countless lives 
during the Holocaust by

[[Page S3459]]

issuing false travel documents so that Jews could escape Hitler's 
persecution. If this bill had been law in 1946, those Jews could have 
been returned to Europe without so much as a hearing.
  Finally, the bill is flawed because it excludes foreigners from our 
shores based on mere membership in a disfavored organization.
  In the days of the cold war, distinguished writers, professors, and 
others were excluded from the United States based on their mere 
membership in a Communist organization. Finally in 1990, we repealed 
the notorious McCarran-Walter law and set exclusion criteria based on 
individual actions, not their words.
  This bill is a giant step backward. It explicitly sets excessive 
exclusion criteria based on membership in an organization, even though 
it would be grossly unfair to assume that all or even most members of 
the organization are terrorists.
  Current law already gives broad authority to exclude members of 
terrorist organizations in such cases, and the blunderbuss provision in 
this bill is unneeded. If applied to American citizens, it would be a 
violation of the first amendment.
  The harm caused by the habeas corpus, asylum, and exclusion 
provisions of this bill is severe, and the good accomplished by the 
antiterrorism sections of the bill is minor. I urge the Senate to send 
this defective bill back to conference with instructions to do the job 
right--and produce a real antiterrorism bill that gives law enforcement 
the tools it needs to get the job done.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee 
for letting me address the Senate on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my distinguished 
colleague and friend, and he would like to restore the Senate bill. We 
just cannot do that. I was very proud of that Senate bill. I wrote most 
of it and, frankly, I think our colleagues worked together to come up 
with a good bill. When it went to the House, the House enacted a bill 
which really was much less than the Senate bill. We have gone to 
conference and have brought most all of the Senate bill back.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says that this bill we 
have today is a hollow shell. Now, come on. Let me just go through some 
highlights of this bill.
  We have most everything back, and the things we do not have back, we 
can probably, in the real world, solve anyway, under current existing 
law. I have to say, yes, I would prefer the original Senate bill, but 
let me give you one illustration.
  In the fundraising provisions, I might add that the Antidefamation 
League, and others of similar mind--and I am of similar mind--believe 
that our fundraising language is far superior in this bill than it was 
in the Senate bill. I know it is far superior.

  We were able to work that out with our colleagues in the House. That 
alone is a reason for preferring this bill over the Senate bill, plus 
the added promise that I have made here that I will try to work out 
these wiretap and other issues, or at least the wiretap issues, in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  But just look at the highlights of this antiterrorism bill. Capital 
punishment reform, death penalty reform, something that has been needed 
for years, decades. It is being abused all over the country. There are 
better than 3,000 people who have been living on death row for years 
with the sentences never carried out, the victims going through the 
pain every time they turn around. This will solve that problem while 
still protecting their constitutional rights and every right of appeal 
that they really should have. It is written well.
  The international terrorism prohibitions, prohibitions on 
international terrorist fundraising. As I have said, the Anti-
Defamation League, AIPAC, and a whole raft of others that are concerned 
in this area, like the language in this bill much better than the 
language in the Senate bill.
  This subtitle adds to Federal law prohibitions which provide material 
support to, or raise funds for, foreign organizations designated by the 
Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury 
and the Attorney General, to be terrorist organizations.
  We have the Terrorist and Criminal Alien Removal and Exclusion Act in 
this bill. We remove alien terrorists, and we provide very good 
language that was very much the same as the Senate language.
  We have the exclusion of members or representatives of terrorist 
organizations, the alien terrorists exclusion, if you will. This 
permits, as a new legal basis for alien exclusion, the denial of entry 
into the United States of any person who is a representative or member 
of a designated terrorist organization.
  We have a whole title on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 
restrictions. These are not picayune provisions. This is big-time 
stuff. This is something this country has needed for years and the 
whole world needs. We have it in this bill.
  We have the expansion of scope and jurisdictional bases of nuclear 
materials prohibitions and a report to Congress on thefts of explosive 
materials from armories. We require the Attorney General, together with 
the Secretary of Defense, to undertake a study of the number of thefts 
of firearms, explosives, and other terrorist-type materials from 
military arsenals. We will make them get on these things.
  We have biological weapons restrictions, enhanced penalties, and 
control of biological agents. We have chemical weapons restrictions, 
chemical weapons, and biological weapons of mass destruction. We 
provide for a study of the facility for training and the evaluation of 
personnel who respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons in 
urban or suburban areas.
  We have the implementation of the Plastic Explosives Convention in 
here. We have the marking of plastic explosives. We have studies on the 
marking of other explosives and putting taggants on them.
  We have made a whole bunch of modifications in criminal law to 
counterterrorism, increased penalties for conspiracies involving 
explosives. All this talk about explosives. We provide language in here 
that will help to solve those problems.
  Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, we have language 
on that. We have criminal procedure changes in here that would make a 
real difference with regard to certain terrorism offenses overseas, the 
clarification of maritime violence jurisdiction, increased and 
alternate conspiracy penalties for terrorism offenses, clarification of 
Federal jurisdiction over bomb threats. The expansion and modification 
of weapons of mass destruction statute is in here, the addition of 
terrorism offenses to the money laundering statute.
  We have the protection of Federal employees in here mainly because it 
is needed now in this day and age with some of the vicious people we 
have to put up with in our society. We have the protection of current 
and former officials in here, officers, employees of the United States.

  We have the death penalty as an aggravating factor. We solve that and 
add multiple killings to the list of aggravating factors in the 
imposition of the death penalty. We have detention hearing language in 
here and directions to the sentencing commission.
  I have to say, we have a whole raft of other things that I do not 
have time to mention. Look, it is time to pass this terrorism bill. It 
is time to let the people in Oklahoma City know we mean business here.
  Is the time expired on both sides? On behalf of the majority leader 
and I, I move that we table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do we have motions to table on both of 
these amendments? And will they be back to back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is only one amendment. The Senator from 
Massachusetts did not offer an amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. He did not. I am happy to then proceed with the vote on 
the Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to table the motion to recommit.

[[Page S3460]]

 The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Hatch and the 
other members of the conference committee for incorporating what 
originated in this Congress as my bill, S. 270, the Alien Terrorist 
Removal Act of 1995, into the conference report on S. 735, the Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
  I also want to thank Senator Specter again for the opportunity to 
testify before his Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism last summer 
regarding my alien terrorist removal bill.
  My bill--now the alien terrorist removal section of the conference 
report on S. 735--essentially embodies the Smith-Simpson amendment that 
the Senate passed unanimously as part of the crime bill in the last 
Congress. Unfortunately, certain House members of the conference 
committee on the 1994 crime bill insisted on the deletion of the Smith-
Simpson amendment from that legislation.
  After I introduced S. 270 early in the first session of this 
Congress, the Clinton administration proposed its own substantially 
identical version of my bill as part of its omnibus antiterrorism 
legislation. Then, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Senators 
Dole and Hatch introduced S. 735, which incorporated the substance of 
my bill, S. 270. S. 735, of course, passed the Senate by a vote of 91 
to 8 last June.
  Unfortunately, when S. 735 reached the House, the alien terrorist 
removal provisions of the Senate-passed bill were removed from the 
legislation. Commendably, however, Senator Hatch steadfastly insisted 
that the conference committee include an alien terrorist removal 
section in its conference report on S. 735. Fortunately for our Nation, 
Senator Hatch succeeded in that effort.
  Let me summarize briefly for the benefit of my colleagues what the 
alien terrorist removal section of S. 735 is all about. The alien 
terrorist removal provisions of the bill would establish a new, 
special, judicial procedure under which classified information can be 
used to establish the deportability of alien terrorists.
  The new procedures that are established under section 401 of S. 735 
are carefully designed to safeguard vitally important national security 
interests, while at the same time according appropriate protection to 
the necessarily limited due process rights of aliens.
  Under current law, Mr. President, classified information cannot be 
used to establish the deportability of terrorist aliens. Thus, when 
there is insufficient unclassified information available to establish 
the deportability of a terrorist alien, the Government faces two 
equally unacceptable choices.

  First, the Justice Department could declassify enough of its evidence 
against the alien in question to establish his deportability. 
Sometimes, however, that simply cannot be done because the classified 
information in question is so sensitive that its disclosure would 
endanger the lives of human sources or compromise highly sensitive 
methods of intelligence gathering.
  The Government's second, and equally untenable, choice would be 
simply to let the terrorist alien involved remain in the United States.
  Sadly, Mr. President, what I have just described is not a 
hypothetical situation. It happens in real cases. That is why the 
Department of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents 
and Attorneys General, has been asking for the authority granted by my 
bill--now section 401 of S. 735--since 1988.
  Utilizing the existing definitions of terrorism in the Immigration 
Act of 1990 and of classified information in the Classified Information 
Procedures Act, section 401 of S. 735 would establish a special alien 
terrorist removal court comprised of sitting U.S. district judges 
designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. This new alien removal court is modeled on the special court 
that was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  Under section 401 of S. 735, the U.S. district judge sitting as the 
special court would personally review the classified information 
involved in camera and ex parte.
  Where possible, without compromising the classified information 
involved, the alien in question would be provided with an unclassified 
summary of the classified information in order to assist him in 
preparing a defense.
  Ultimately, the special court would determine whether, considering 
the record as a whole, the Justice Department has proven, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the alien is a terrorist who should 
be removed from the United States.
  Finally, Mr. President, any alien who is ordered removed under the 
provisions of section 401 of S. 735 would have the right to appeal to 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  Mr. President, the most serious national security threat that our 
Nation faces in the post-cold-war world is the scourge of international 
terrorism. That threat became reality in 1993 with the terrorist attack 
on the World Trade Center in New York City. Tragically, with the 
Oklahoma City bombing 1 year ago this week, we learned the bitter 
lesson that we face the threat of terrorism from domestic extremists as 
well.
  Now, this historic 104th Congress is responding, strongly and 
effectively, to address the twin terrorist threats that we face. I urge 
the prompt adoption of the conference report on S. 735 by the Senate 
and, once again, I commend the conferees for incorporating my alien 
terrorist removal bill into their landmark legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am encouraged that the conference report 
includes important provisions that I proposed back in June 1995, when 
the Senate began consideration of antiterrorism legislation. These 
provisions were adopted by the Senate and then passed as part of the 
original S.735 and passed a second time last year by the Senate as part 
of H.R. 665, our version of the mandatory victim restitution 
legislation. They are now included as sections 231 and 232 of the 
conference report. It is astonishing that at the time I added these 
provisions to the bill there were no victims-related measures in any 
antiterrorism legislation.
  When the bomb exploded outside the Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City last year, my thoughts and prayers, and I suspect that 
those of all Americans, turned immediately to the victims of this 
horrendous act. It is my hope that through this legislation we will 
proceed to enact a series of improvements in our growing body of law 
recognizing the rights and needs of victims of crime. We can do more to 
see

[[Page S3461]]

that victims of crime, including terrorism, are treated with dignity 
and assisted.
  The conference report incorporates the provisions of the Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism Act, which will accomplish a number of worthwhile 
objectives. They include a proposal to increase the availability of 
assistance to victims of terrorism and mass violence here at home.
  We, in this country, have been shielded from much of the terrorism 
perpetrated abroad. That sense of security has been shaken recently by 
the bombing in Oklahoma City, the destruction at the World Trade Center 
in New York, and assaults upon the White House. I, therefore, proposed 
that we allow additional flexibility in targeting resources to victims 
of terrorism and mass violence and the trauma and devastation that they 
cause.
  The conference report includes these provisions to make funds 
available through supplemental grants to the States to assist and 
compensate our neighbors who are victims of terrorism and mass 
violence, which incidents might otherwise overwhelm the resources of a 
State's crime victims compensation program or its victims assistance 
services. I understand that assistance efforts to aid those who were 
the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing are now $1 million in debt. 
These provisions should help.
  The substitute will also fill a gap in our law for residents of the 
United States who are victims of terrorism and mass violence that occur 
outside the borders of the United States. Those who are not in the 
military, civil service, or civilians in the service of the United 
States are not eligible for benefits in accordance with the Omnibus 
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. One of the 
continuing tragedies of the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over 
Lockerbie, Scotland, is that the United States Government had no 
authority to provide assistance or compensation to the victims of that 
heinous crime. Likewise, the U.S. victims of the Achille Lauro incident 
could not be given aid. This was wrong and should be remedied.
  In its report to Congress in 1994, the Office for Victims of Crime at 
the U.S. Department of Justice identified the problem. Both the ABA and 
the State Department have commented on their concern and their desire 
that crime victims compensation benefits be provided to U.S. citizens 
victimized in other countries. This bill takes an important step in 
that direction. Certainly U.S. victims of terrorism overseas are 
deserving of our support and assistance.
  In addition, I believe that we must allow a greater measure of 
flexibility to our State and local victims' assistance programs and 
some greater certainty so that they can know that our commitment to 
victims programming will not wax and wane with events. Accordingly, the 
conference report includes an important provision to increase the base 
amounts for States' victims assistance grants to $500,000 and allows 
victims assistance grants to be made for a 3-year cycle of programming, 
rather than the year of award plus one, which is the limit contained in 
current law. This programming change reflects the recommendation of the 
Office for Victims of Crime contained in its June 1994 report to 
Congress.
  I am disappointed that some have objected to an important improvement 
that would have allowed all unspent grant funds to be returned to the 
crime victims fund from which they came and reallocated to crime 
victims assistance programs. I believe that we ought to treat the crime 
victims fund, the violent crime reduction trust fund, and Violence 
Against Women Act funds with respect and use them for the important 
purposes for which they were created.
  The crime victims fund, we should remember, is not a matter of 
appropriation and is not funded through tax dollars. Rather, it is 
funded exclusively through the assessments against those convicted of 
Federal crimes. The crime victims fund is a mechanism to direct use of 
those funds to compensate and assist crime victims. That is the express 
purpose and justification for the assessments.
  Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate for those funds to be used 
for crime victims and, when not expended for purposes of a crime 
victims program, they ought to be returned to the crime victims fund 
for reobligation. Instead, because of a technicality in the application 
of the Budget Act, the conference report includes a change from the 
language that I proposed and that was approved by the Judiciary 
Committee and previously by the Senate. My language would have returned 
all unspent crime victims grant funds to the crime victims fund. The 
conference report will require that some of the money that came from 
the crime victims fund go, instead, to the general Treasury if it 
remains unobligated more than 2 years after the year of grant award. I 
am pleased that we have been able to obtain some concession in this 
regard and note that the unobligated funds must exceed $500,000 in 
order to revert to the general Treasury.
  Fortunately, the Office for Victims of Crime has improved its 
administration of crime victims funds and that of the States over the 
past 3 years to a great extent. While more than $1 million a year has 
in past years remained unobligated from grants made through the States 
across the country, in 1994 that number was reduced below $125,000. The 
Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, Aileen Adams, should be 
commended for this improvement. It is my hope that the administration 
of crime victims fund grants will continue to improve through the 
Department of Justice and the States and that the Department of Health 
and Human Services will, likewise, improve its oversight and grant 
administration and encourage the States to be more vigilant. If so, the 
change in the language of the bill from that previously adopted by the 
Senate and by the Judiciary Committee will not result in a significant 
diversion of crime victims fund money to other uses.
  I also regret that the emergency reserve is not structured as I 
recommended. I would limit the reserve to the highest level of annual 
deposits placed in the fund in the past 5 fiscal years. This would 
allow the emergency reserve to fulfill its purpose as a rainy day fund 
and smooth the distribution of aberrational deposit pattern. Further, I 
hope that we will soon reconsider the 40-percent cap of Federal 
contributions to State victim compensation awards and other suggested 
improvements to the Victims of Crime Act.
  Our State and local communities and community-based nonprofits cannot 
be kept on a string like a yo-yo if they are to plan and implement 
victims assistance and compensation programs. They need to be able to 
plan and have a sense of stability if these measures are to achieve 
their fullest potential.
  I know, for instance, that in Vermont Lori Hayes at the Vermont 
Center for crime victims Services, Judy Rex at the Vermont Network 
Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse, and many others provide 
tremendous service under difficult conditions. I was delighted to be 
able to arrange a meeting between them and the Attorney General of the 
United States when Attorney General Reno recently visited Vermont. They 
will be able to put increased annual assistance grants to good use. 
Such dedicated individuals and organizations will also be aided by 
increasing their programming cycle by even 1 year. Three years has been 
a standard that has worked well in other programming settings. Crime 
victims' programming deserves no less security.
  In 1984, when we established the crime victims fund to provide 
Federal assistance to State and local victims' compensation and 
assistance efforts, we funded it with fines and penalties from those 
convicted of Federal crime. The level of required contribution was set 
low. Twelve years have passed and it is time to raise that level of 
assessment in order to fund the needs of crime victims. Accordingly, 
the conference report includes as section 210 a provision that I worked 
on with Senator McCain and that the Senate previously passed as an 
amendment to the antiterrorism bill last summer. It doubles the special 
assessments levied under the Victims of Crime Act against those 
convicted of Federal felonies in order to assist all victims of crime.
  I do not think that $100 to assist crime victims is too much for 
those individuals convicted of a Federal felony to contribute to help 
crime victims. I do not think that $400 is too much to

[[Page S3462]]

insist that corporations convicted of a Federal felony contribute. 
Accordingly, the conference report would raise these to be the minimum 
level of assessment against those convicted of crime.
  While we have made progress over the last 15 years in recognizing 
crime victims' rights and providing much-needed assistance, we still 
have more to do. I am proud to have played a role in passage of the 
Victims and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act of 
1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, and the victims 
provisions included in such measures as the Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I thank my colleagues for their acceptance 
of the provisions of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
  I thank the outstanding crime victims advocates from Vermont for 
their help, advice, and support in connection with the Justice for 
Victims of Terrorism Act and the improvements it includes to the 
Victims of Crime Act. I also thank them for the work they are doing by 
developing and implementing programs for crime victims in Vermont.
  In addition, I thank the National Organization for Victim Assistance, 
the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, and the 
National Victim Center for their assistance and support in the 
development of the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. Without their 
help, we could not make the important progress that its provisions 
contain. I appreciate the cooperation of all those who have worked to 
incorporate these improvements to the Victims of Crime Act in this 
measure.
  It is important to me that we do all we can to bring stability to the 
crime victims fund so that the State programs for compensating and 
assisting victims of crime can plan and provide services for victims 
that increase and expand across our States in the coming years. I hope 
that we can continue to cooperate and refine the Victims of Crime Act's 
provisions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it has been nearly 1 year since America 
was shocked and outraged by the bombing in Oklahoma City.
  The anguish and the pain caused by this cowardly act left a marked 
impression on each of us which remains today.
  That which had formerly been reserved for distant parts of the 
globe--acts of savage terrorism--was now being visited upon the 
citizens of this Nation.
  There can be no debate that we must respond to these acts, as we must 
all acts of crime, with the singular and unyielding purpose of 
capturing, prosecuting and punishing the responsible individuals.
  Unfortunately, in the 12 months that has passed since Oklahoma City, 
this legislation has been subject to many varied interests--interests 
placing certain proposals above the underlying goal of responding to 
terrorism in the measured and focused manner necessary to protect the 
citizens of this Nation.
  Unfortunately, many of the proposals which have been offered 
throughout this debate to combat terrorism simply went too far and 
placed the civil liberties of all Americans in peril.
  For this simple reason I opposed language included in the Senate bill 
which would have expanded the scope of wiretap authority and would have 
injected the military into areas of law enforcement which are better 
left to local officials.
  I am concerned that these provisions move us toward unwarranted 
expansion of Federal power. Accordingly, I support the removal of these 
provisions from the final package.
  However, just as some of those proposals overstepped the boundaries 
of civil liberties, the final conference report remains flawed.
  Careful review of this legislation reveals that it contains very few 
substantive provisions which would have prevented or helped prevent the 
Oklahoma City tragedy.
  As I said when the Senate considered this legislation last summer, it 
is essential that law enforcement be given the resources and support 
necessary to investigate and prosecute terrorists.
  To truly protect citizens of this Nation, terrorists must be stopped 
before they strike--before they take innocent lives in some misguided 
effort to prove the validity of their agenda.
  That is why I am so troubled when I hear the suggestion that the 
single most effective antiterrorism provision in this bill is the 
alleged reform of habeas corpus.
  The link between habeas corpus and keeping the people of this Nation 
free from acts of terrorism is tenuous at best. The argument that these 
habeas provisions will prevent another Oklahoma City is one which is 
manufactured solely to justify inclusion of these unrelated provisions 
in a bill originally meant to address terrorism.
  These so-called habeas reforms will do nothing to rid our communities 
of dangerous persons who may strike against innocent people.
  The only time habeas corpus is even remotely related to terrorism is 
after the terrorist has committed an act of terrorism, has been 
apprehended, convicted and is sitting in a prison cell.
  Once again political expediency has obscured sound policy making. In 
the words of the New York Times, ``Members of Congress are exploiting 
public concerns about terrorism to threaten basic civil liberties.''
  Many of my colleagues want very sincerely to address what they 
perceive to be abuses in the use of habeas corpus. These efforts, 
however, should not be hidden behind the unsustainable claim that doing 
so in anyway makes the people of this Nation less likely to be attacked 
by terrorists.
  Further, the provisions in the conference report go well beyond 
reform and eviscerate the constitutional underpinnings of habeas 
corpus. Just as many of the law enforcement provisions went too far, so 
too do the habeas provisions.
  By setting unreasonable limitations and standards of review available 
on appeal of constitutional violations, this bill greatly enhances the 
potential that this Nation will execute an innocent person for a crime 
they did not commit.
  I do not disagree with my colleagues who argue that justice must be 
served. The families of the victims and the American people deserve as 
much. However, the pursuit of justice does not require us, as these 
habeas provisions do, to depart from over 200 years of constitutional 
protections.
  Justice is not served by the execution of an innocent human being. 
The families of the victims and the American public will find no 
comfort from such an occurrence.
  Like so many facets of this bill, the habeas provisions of this bill 
lack any semblance of reasonable balance.
  A recent March 20 editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 
entitled ``A needless overreaction to terrorism'' criticized these 
provisions and pointed out the fallacy of the alleged link between 
habeas reform and terrorism or that these provisions will have any 
deterrent effect.
  In the words of the Journal;

       It's difficult to see how limits on appeals by prison 
     inmates would deter terrorism. Most such prisoners have been 
     convicted of ordinary--not political--crimes. Besides, many 
     terrorists are willing to undergo punishment, even death, for 
     the causes they believe in.

  The inclusion of habeas reform in this legislation has very little to 
do with terrorism and a great deal to do with advancing an agenda which 
has previously languished in the Congress.
  Just as I opposed those law enforcement provisions which raised 
constitutional concerns, so too do I oppose these proposals.
  We should be just as wary of proposals which forsake constitutional 
protection in the name of habeas reform as we are of those which do so 
in the name of expanding wiretap authority.
  Mr. President, it is very likely that this conference report will 
become law. This is unfortunate. Not simply because bad provisions of 
this bill will become bad law, but because this bill represents an 
opportunity squandered.
  This legislation started as an effort to address terrorism--to 
provide some protection for the citizens of this Nation against acts of 
terrorism. The American people deserve as much. Sadly Mr. President, 
for all the fanfare which will likely accompany this legislation, it 
fails to meet that laudable and important goal.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I will support passage of the Terrorism 
Prevention Act Conference Report. Although the conference report is not 
as

[[Page S3463]]

strong as the Senate-passed bill, nor is it as strong as I would like, 
it is much stronger than the House-passed bill and reflects a 
compromise between the two houses which is an essential element of our 
Nation's democratic process.
  It is fitting that we enact this legislation around the anniversary 
of the tragic bombing which occurred in Oklahoma City and resulted in 
such a massive loss of life and injury to innocent people. We must 
enhance our Nation's efforts to combat domestic and international 
terrorism, and the conference report is a step in the right direction.
  I am pleased that the conferees were able to restore many provisions 
which the House-passed bill deleted, such as allowing courts to 
expeditiously deport alien terrorists, allowing the President to 
designate foreign terrorist organizations so any assets they have in 
the United States can be more easily frozen by the Government, and 
making it a crime to donate or accept funds for foreign terrorist 
organizations. Further, the House-passed bill contained almost no 
funding for Federal law enforcement, and the conference report has a 
funding level of $1 billion for Federal and State law enforcement over 
a 4-year period.
  The conference report contains a provision to require taggants be 
placed on plastic explosives, which are most commonly used by foreign 
terrorists, thereby making them more detectable, and it calls for a 
study on placing taggants on other types of explosives.
  I would have preferred that the conference report contained the 
Senate-passed provisions allowing for multipoint wiretaps and other 
strong provisions, but this did not occur and motions to recommit the 
bill to conference with instructions to include those provisions have 
been unsuccessful. This is the democratic process, and I accept the 
will of the Senate.
  That does not, however, leave this legislation a toothless tiger. It 
contains strong provisions to reform Federal habeas corpus laws--
something that is long overdue. Reform of the habeas corpus process 
will speed up the imposition of sentences of those criminal convicted 
of especially brutal crimes. Overall, the conference report is a step 
in the right direction, and I urge its passage so that it can be signed 
by the President and allow our Nation to enhance its efforts to combat 
both domestic and international terrorism.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 
1996. Almost 1 year ago today, the Oklahoma City bombing brought into 
sharp focus the reality and horror of domestic terrorism in America. 
The death toll of the bombing stands at 167, making it the deadliest 
mass murder in the history of the United States.
  While several strong crime fighting provisions that I supported in 
the Senate version of the bill were deleted by the conference 
committee, this legislation contains tools that will enable the United 
States to respond to the international and domestic terrorist threats 
and prosecute these despicable criminal acts. On balance, Mr. 
President, this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement 
to combat both foreign and domestic terrorism.
  Mr. President, the provisions in this bill are vitally important to 
our efforts to respond to international and domestic threats of 
terrorism. I, therefore, support this bill, and I am confident that 
because of our actions today, America will be more fortified against 
the evils of terrorism.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for the last day and a half, the Senate 
has been debating the antiterrorism bill conference report. During 
debate, a number of motions to recommit the legislation to conference 
were offered.
  I voted against all of them--even those with which I agree on the 
substance. In this situation sending the bill back to conference would 
not be simply a matter of adding back provisions that we in the Senate 
like. Sending the bill back to conference would reopen the legislation 
to countless changes that the House might, in turn, demand that the 
Senate accept.
  Obviously this conference report is not perfect. No bill is. Frankly, 
there are some provisions I wish were still in there, and others I 
would gladly see dropped. For example, I would have liked to see in the 
final bill the Boxer amendment on the statute of limitations for 
firearms violations. But I recognize that the nature of a conference is 
compromise. And therefore the package before us is the only one on 
which we can act.
  In conclusion, I might add, I do not believe that the door is finally 
shut on amendments such as the Boxer amendment. We can hopefully 
revisit that amendment on another bill.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the Terrorism Prevention Act. This bill takes many important 
steps in the fight against terrorism. In particular, several key 
provisions will significantly strengthen U.S. efforts to combat 
international terrorism. In recent years, attacking terrorism has taken 
a back seat in U.S. foreign policy. Attacks have been waged against 
innocent people and allies across the world, and yet terrorists are 
invited to the White House where their violent rhetoric has been 
conveniently overlooked.
  In January 1994, Gerry Adams, the leader of the Irish-national 
political organization Sinn Fein, was granted a visa on a Presidential 
foreign policy waiver to travel to the United States. In doing this, 
the National Security Council overruled a unanimous recommendation from 
the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the 
intelligence community that the waiver should not be granted due to the 
fact that neither Adams nor the Irish Republican Army have really 
renounced violence in theory or in practice. This exception represents 
the current administration's ability to pay lipservice to stopping 
terrorism while failing to achieve substantive results.
  In the past, Adams had been denied a visa eight times by previous 
administrations because of his affiliation with the terrorist 
organization. But since obtaining a visa in January 1994, Adams has 
received seven additional visas from the Clinton administration, was 
received by State Department officials, introduced to National Security 
Advisor Anthony Lake, raised money throughout the United States while 
touring in March 1995, and celebrated St. Patrick's Day in the White 
House. All of this transpired even though he has yet to renounce the 
use of violence to achieve political goals or denounce the plague of 
terrorist bombings in Great Britain.
  We cannot continue to project such an inconsistent and unflattering 
testament of our commitment to fight terrorism. The legislation we now 
consider addresses many of the shortcomings in our ability to deal 
strongly and effectively with terrorism. The provisions in S. 735 will 
significantly strengthen our authority to combat international 
terrorism, and three sections in particular are worth noting.
  Section 221 of this bill amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 
to permit jurisdiction of U.S. courts for lawsuits against terrorist 
states, as designated by the Secretary of State. Under current law, 
U.S. citizens are barred from suing foreign governments or state-owned 
foreign enterprises unless the alleged injury is directly related to 
the commercial activity of the foreign government. In other words, 
American citizens can be tortured or murdered in a foreign state by 
agents of that state, and if that state provides no effective legal 
remedy, the American victims and their families have no enforceable 
legal remedy either in the United States or anywhere else in the world. 
The provision in section 221 will now allow victims of terrorism, 
hostage taking or torture abroad, or their survivors, to seek 
restitution against a state sponsor of terrorism when they are unable 
to gain relief in the courts of the country involved.

  This provision provides vital remedies for victims. Just last summer 
a United States district court barred survivors of Pan Am 103 victims 
from suing Libya even though the United States Government had found 
Libya to be directly responsible and two Libyans had been indicted in 
United States court for the crime.
  It is important to note that section 221 provides a responsible 
avenue for victims to seek just compensation. This is a powerful and 
significant tool that should be used cautiously. Thus the legislation 
limits the scope of jurisdiction to only those countries who have been 
identified as state sponsors

[[Page S3464]]

of terrorism. Sovereign immunity is designed to protect nations from 
being dragged into another nation's courts for legitimate sovereign 
acts. The international community, however, does not recognize the 
right of any state to commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killing, 
aircraft sabotage, or hostage taking. Sovereign immunity is an act of 
trust among nations of good faith. When a terrorist state harbors or 
supports known terrorists, or injures or kills American citizens, it 
destroys that trust and should not be allowed to avoid the accusations 
of those it harms.
  Beyond ensuring that American citizens have recourse after brutal 
terrorist acts, this section represents a vital counterterrorism 
measure. I am confident that the threat of enforceable judgments and 
levies against assets from U.S. courts will be a significant inducement 
for countries to get themselves off of the State Department's terrorist 
list.
  Section 323 also provides an important tool in combating 
international terrorism. As a result of international pressures against 
states which provide support to international terrorists, some 
terrorist groups are seeking other means of financing and support, such 
as raising funds from sympathizers or establishing front companies. 
During its investigation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce 
International [BCCI], the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unearthed 
a significant trail of funding through BCCI that demonstrated the 
importance of international financial networks in the support of 
illegal and terrorist activity abroad. The bank hosted many illegal, 
unsafe, and unsound banking practices, as well as acting as a front for 
worldwide arms deals, drug deals, and assistance to various groups 
linked directly or indirectly to terrorist activity. Section 323 will 
enable U.S. prosecutors to begin to crack down on the use by terrorist 
groups of international financial institutions and front companies for 
their material support.
  This provision would create a new offense of providing material 
support or resources, or concealing the nature, location, source, or 
ownership of material support or resources, for various terrorist-
related offenses. Currently, an individual responsible for building a 
bomb or taking someone hostage can be prosecuted for their activities, 
but those providing financial or technical support, or harboring 
terrorists after the crime, can escape punishment of any kind. Section 
323 criminalizes a series of offenses by recognizing all forms of 
meaningful assistance and material support to terrorists.

  It amends current law which was originally offered with the same 
intent as section 323, but was severely weakened in conference, 
rendering it virtually ineffective. This language strengthens current 
law by restoring the original intent of punishing all persons involved, 
to whatever degree, in terrorist activities.
  Finally, section 411 which allows the exclusion of alien terrorists 
from the United States is an extremely important tool in combating 
international terrorism. Currently we have a loophole in our 
immigration law that permits the United States to issue visas to know 
members of terrorist organizations. How can America expect to condemn 
other nations who support terrorists without first taking action to 
limit the organizational efforts of known terrorists in the United 
States? We must slam the door on foreign members of such terrorist 
organizations who now freely travel to our country.
  The case of Sheikh Rashid Ghanoushi's application for a visa to the 
United States highlights the far-reaching consequences of our limited 
exclusionary authority. Ghanoushi is an Islamic extremist whose 
terrorist organization was responsible for the deaths of many innocent 
tourists in Tunisia. He was convicted in absentia.
  Nonetheless, in 1993, he applied for a visa to travel to the United 
States to speak to religious and academic audiences. In June 1994, the 
Government of Tunisia indicated that it would regard a United States 
decision to admit Ghanoushi as a hostile act. Furthermore, in the past 
Ghanoushi has urged violence against United States interests and 
continues to demand Israel's destruction. Yet the United States has 
still not issued a final decision about whether to grant a visa to him, 
claiming lack of authority to deny him entry. At present, Ghanoushi's 
case is under active review by the State Department.
  It is well known that many foreign terrorist groups depend on money 
raised in the United States to fund their activities abroad. Terrorist 
activity should not be defined by the area in which a bomb explodes.
  Our Nation, with its many democratic freedoms, represents fertile 
ground for terrorist organizations for fundraising, organizational 
support, and international recognition. Many of these terrorists 
organizations have already developed networks of support in our 
country.
  The existing loophole in the Immigration Act of 1990 permitting 
members of terrorist organizations to come to the United States 
fostered an atmosphere of indecisiveness. It sends the wrong signal to 
the international community. The provisions in section 411 correct this 
inconsistency and effectively strengthen our authority to combat 
terrorism and keep those people who are members of terrorist 
organizations off of U.S. soil.
  In the past decade, Americans have suffered numerous terrorists 
attacks. Without the authority and support created by S. 735, 
particularly the three sections I highlighted, we will continue to 
needlessly hamstring our ability to protect American citizens. Enough 
is enough. It is time to take bold steps to protect American citizens 
from the threat posed by terrorism. We know the obstacles currently 
facing us in the fight against international terrorism. S. 735 provides 
the tools and the authority necessary to wage an effective defense.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this Friday will be the first anniversary of 
the brutal and cowardly bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City. One hundred and sixty-nine Americans, 
including 19 children tragically lost their lives in this terrible act 
of domestic terrorism.
  A year later, that terrorist bombing continues to tear at the 
Nation's soul. As we continue to mourn the loss of so many innocent 
lives, our hearts go out to the survivors, the families of the victims 
and the courageous residents of Oklahoma City who have already begun 
the difficult healing process.
  However, part of the process of healing begins with the pursuit of 
justice. And for the past year, law enforcement officials have 
tirelessly labored to see that the full force of the law is brought to 
bear on the guilty parties. And soon, the trial against the alleged 
bombers will begin.
  But, as we continue the process of providing answers to this terrible 
tragedy--the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil--we must find 
new and innovative ways to prevent such acts in the future. That's what 
this bill is all about.
  While no one will argue that this legislation, or for that matter any 
legislation, will finally and completely end terrorism, we must take 
the necessary steps to deter terrorists from their deadly actions. We 
must make it more difficult for them to kill and injure. And we must 
ensure that they are swiftly brought to justice.
  President Clinton deserves praise for moving forcefully in that 
direction by submitting a comprehensive counter-terrorism proposal to 
Congress, after the Oklahoma bombing.
  Unfortunately, in the year since the President introduced that 
proposal, Congress has dragged it's feet on this legislation. What's 
worse, I believe, many of the strongest elements of this bill have been 
watered down or eliminated by the House of Representatives.
  Several provisions that would make it easier for law enforcement 
agencies to utilize multipoint and emergency wiretaps against suspected 
terrorists were removed.
  The failure to include these wiretap provisions in the final 
conference report create a situation where it is easier for the FBI to 
tap the phone of someone they suspect of bribing a bank officer than 
someone who may be prepared to engage in a terrorist act.

  What's more, this conference report prevents the Attorney General 
from requesting technical and logistical support from the military if 
our Nation faced an emergency involving biological and chemical 
weapons.
  This provision was deleted even though I think everyone in this body

[[Page S3465]]

would agree that the military has far more expertise in matters of 
chemical and biological weapons than our law enforcement agencies.
  It's particularly disheartening that while these provisions were 
overwhelmingly agreed to by the Senate, they were removed from the 
final conference report because of the intransigence of the other body.
  Similarly, while we need to find ways to prevent prisoners from 
abusing the legal process, by filing meritless appeals, we must ensure 
that those people who have been unfairly convicted have some legal 
recourse.
  Unfortunately, I believe that the habeus corpus reform measures in 
this bill are ill-advised. They limit the ability of inmates to raise 
claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence and also require 
Federal courts to defer to State courts on issues of Federal 
constitutional law raised by these claims.
  However, while I feel this legislation could be further strengthened 
if it were recommitted to the conference, there are enough positive 
elements in the bill that allow me to vote for it.
  This counter-terrorism legislation provides Federal law enforcement 
officials with the proper means to investigate and prevent terrorism. 
It establishes new Federal offenses to ensure that terrorists do not 
elude justice through gaps in the current law.
  Similarly, it increases penalties for terrorist actions. And it gives 
new assistance to victims of terrorist attacks, including provisions 
that will make it easier to bring lawsuits against States that sponsor 
terrorism. Combined, these steps will give law enforcement important 
new tools to use in the fight against terrorism.
  Although it is not perfect, this bill will not only help the Nation 
prevent terrorist acts but it will also help hold terrorists 
accountable for their actions.
  The bombing in Oklahoma made clear just how vulnerable we all are to 
these terrible acts of violence. And ultimately, I believe this 
legislation will make Americans safer from the scourge of international 
and domestic terrorism.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this conference 
report which embodies compromise antiterrorism and anticrime 
legislation. I recognize that many Members would like to see additional 
provisions added. We have waited too long, however, to allow this 
opportunity to pass without enacting legislation which will help us 
avoid additional disasters such as Oklahoma City and the World Trade 
Center bombings. I thus support this conference report as it stands and 
will continue to work to pass additional measures which will combat 
terrorism, whether sponsored by foreign entities or by domestic 
extremists.
  This bill provides $1 billion for enhanced law enforcement efforts, 
both at the Federal and State levels, to combat terrorism. Plastic 
explosives will be required to be tagged with materials which can be 
tracked back to the source in the event of a bombing. Foreign 
terrorists will be denied the opportunity to raise money inside the 
United States, and if found here, will be subject to special, but 
constitutional, deportation proceedings. The bill also includes 
numerous important and noncontroversial provisions which will remove 
legal impediments to combat terrorism.
  This bill also contains one of the most important anticrime and 
judicial reform measures passed in years. Finally, the charade of 
habeas corpus appeals will be reformed: death row inmates will no 
longer be allowed to drag out their appeals for several decades. I have 
faith that our State courts respect our constitutional rights, and in 
the exceptional case where Federal rights have been violated, 
defendants retain very reasonable access to Federal courts to prove 
their innocence.
  We have come to a crossroads in this debate almost 1 year after the 
tragedy in Oklahoma. Either we pass this bill and begin reaping the 
protections it will provide us in the fight against terrorists, or we 
throw up our hands and give up. I believe we need this bill now and I 
commend the efforts of Senator Hatch and others to reach a reasonable 
consensus which can pass both houses and be signed into law by 
President Clinton.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, today, as the Senate considers the 
conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996, I regret that as I did when this bill was 
presented for passage in the Senate, I again must oppose the final 
version of the bill. I do so for two basic reasons.
  First, the conference did nothing to change those provisions of the 
bill which drastically curtail the Federal judicial protections 
afforded those given the death penalty in State courts. This is a 
departure from a longstanding tradition in English and American 
jurisprudence and, as an opponent of the death penalty, I feel I cannot 
in good conscience support it.
  Second, the conference removed several of the most effective 
antiterrorism measures that were included in the Senate version of the 
bill. These include giving the FBI the ability to employ court-approved 
multipoint wiretaps, adding terrorism crimes to the list of those for 
which wiretaps can be approved, including terrorism crimes under RICO 
statutes, and permitting the use of military expertise to cope with 
either chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Without 
these provisions, I believe that the bill has been severely compromised 
and, in the process, the chance to do something truly meaningful about 
domestic and international terrorism in this bill has been lost.
  Accordingly, I believe that the conference report fails to correct 
the deficiencies of the legislation that left the Senate last summer 
and furthermore, has eliminated many of its most effective 
counterterrorism provisions. Thus, I continue to oppose passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for S. 735, I am distressed 
that a number of the strongest antiterrorism provisions of the Senate 
bill were dropped in conference with the House. For example, I am 
disappointed that the conference report would not--Provide the Attorney 
General the enhanced tools for fighting domestic and international 
terrorism that were requested by the administration and included in the 
Senate bill; permit the Attorney General to utilize the expertise of 
the military in investigations of crimes involving the use of chemical 
and biological weapons; or prohibit the dissemination of information on 
making explosive materials with the knowledge that the information will 
be used for criminal activities.
  On balance, however, I conclude that the antiterrorism provisions in 
the bill, viewed as a whole, are still worth enacting.
  The habeas corpus provisions of the bill are also problematical. 
Under the conference report, an application for a writ of habeas corpus 
may be granted if the underlying State court decision was ``contrary 
to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.''
  I interpret the new standard to give the Federal courts the final say 
as to what the U.S. Constitution says. I reach this conclusion for two 
reasons.
  First, several Members have raised the concern that the reference in 
the bill to an unreasonable application of Federal law could create two 
different classes of constitutional violations--reasonable and 
unreasonable. I vote for the bill because I have confidence that the 
Federal courts will not do this. I believe the courts will conclude, as 
they should, that a constitutional error cannot be reasonable and that 
if a State court decision is wrong, it must necessarily be 
unreasonable.
  Second, I note that this provision permits a Federal court to grant a 
petition for habeas corpus if the State court decision was contrary to 
Federal law. I interpret this language to mean that a Federal court may 
grant habeas corpus--on a first petition--any time that a State court 
incorrectly interprets Federal law and that error is material to the 
case. In other words, if the State court's interpretation of the U.S. 
Constitution is wrong, this standard authorizes the Federal courts to 
overturn that interpretation.
  The provision in the bill refers to ``clearly established Federal 
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'' I 
understand this provision to refer to the whole body of Supreme Court 
jurisprudence on substantive and procedural rights. If the Supreme 
Court has adopted a clear rule

[[Page S3466]]

of law and that rule has been consistently interpreted and applied by 
the courts of appeals, that rule--and its consistent interpretation and 
application--would prevail in habeas corpus proceedings.
  In sum, Mr. President, I believe that this standard can be 
interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental duty of 
the Federal courts to act as the final interpreters of the meaning of 
the U.S. Constitution, and to protect the constitutional rights of 
Americans.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only 
remaining motions to recommit in order to the pending conference report 
be the following: Two additional Biden motions; further, that the 
motions be limited to the restrictions previously agreed to, and that 
following the debate on all motions and the conference report, the 
Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the pending motions, to be 
followed by a vote on the adoption of the conference report, all 
without any intervening action or debate, with the exception of using 6 
minutes, equally divided, for debate prior to the final passage vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am offering a motion to recommit the 
conference report with instructions to add provisions relating to a 
third type of wiretap that was deleted, referred to as an emergency 
wiretap.
  I send the motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] moves 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.   . REVISION TO EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY 
                   WIRETAPS.

       (a) Section 2518(7)(a)(iii) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``or domestic terrorism or 
     international terrorism (as those terms are defined in 18 
     U.S.C. 2331)'' after ``organized crime''.
       (b) Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code is amended 
     by inserting the following words after subsection (4):
       ``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means any activities 
     that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life 
     that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United 
     States or of any State and which appear to be intended to 
     intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence 
     the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to 
     affect the conduct of a government by assassination or 
     kidnapping.''.
       (c) This section shall be effective one day after enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I do not plan on taking the entire allotted 
time on this side with this motion.
  Let me be real clear about this. This provision was not in the Senate 
bill. It was offered by Senator Lieberman, and it was strongly 
supported by many in this body. But it was not in the original Senate 
bill.
  This provision incorporates the President's proposal to expand 
emergency wiretap authority. Today, emergency wiretap authority is 
available for organized crime cases. This proposal simply makes it 
available for terrorism cases. This proposal says that what is fair for 
the mob is fair for Hamas. What is good for John Gotti is good for any 
terrorist from abroad. What is good for those involved in organized 
crime is good for terrorists. If the justification exists for organized 
crime in and the mob, why does it not exist for crimes of terrorism?
  Let me first explain what an emergency wiretap is, because 
understandably a lot of people--I know many, like the Senator from Utah 
and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the Senator 
from Vermont, Senator Leahy, all former prosecutors understand these 
wiretap requirements, but many do not.
  An emergency wiretap--I will explain more precisely not only what it 
is but how it is limited. First of all, in all cases--or in most 
cases--the Government must go to a judge to get a court order before it 
can initiate a wiretap. But at the same time, Congress recognized there 
are emergency situations where time is of the essence and that 
completing the necessary paperwork and getting the judge's order will 
simply take longer than the situation allows.
  I have gone through today probably a half hour's worth laying out 
precisely the safeguards built into getting a wiretap for a crime that 
is listed in the Criminal Code as being able to get a wiretap for, and 
how long and difficult the process is and should be. But the Congress 
in the past has recognized that there are situations under current law 
which allow the Government to initiate a wiretap without a court order. 
Here are the circumstances: where immediate danger, death, or serious 
physical injury exists; where conspiratorial activities threaten the 
national security, or a conspiratorial activity characteristic of 
organized crime activities exist.
  Only the top three Justice Department officials--the Attorney 
General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney 
General--have the authority under the present law to issue or to 
authorize any emergency wiretap.
  If the law stopped there, I would agree with those who object to this 
amendment. I would agree that it does not go far enough to protect our 
civil liberties if all it said was one of the three top the Justice 
Department officials can initiate a wiretap. But the law does not stop 
there now. It does not allow Federal officials to operate on their own 
for long. Indeed, it requires that if the Attorney General authorizes 
an emergency wiretap for any one of those three circumstances I 
mentioned, they must nonetheless go before a Federal judge within 48 
hours and make a case that probable cause exists for this wiretap prior 
to the authorization of the wiretap, prior to the time the tap started. 
Prior to that time, they have to prove there is probable cause that the 
subject was committing a specific crime. The officials also must 
convince the judge that they could not have completed the necessary 
application prior to beginning the wiretap.

  And, of course, if the judge concludes that either they could have 
completed the application in the necessary time or that there was no 
probable cause at the outset, then none of the evidence, no matter how 
incriminating, that is acquired as a consequence of the emergency tap 
can be used in court against the target. If the judge does not buy it, 
enforcement will have blown their case. Not only must the wiretap stop, 
but none of the evidence obtained by the tap can be used against the 
target.
  This is a powerful check on the Government's power. You can bet that 
they are not just going to go around willy-nilly exercising--the top 
three officials of the Justice Department--emergency authority because, 
if they do, they will lose their evidence if they turn out to be wrong, 
which means they will lose their case, which means the bad guys go free 
and all the time investigating up to that point will have been wasted 
and blown. That is not what law enforcement wants.
  I want to repeat. Why, if we give this authority, this very limited 
and proscribed emergency authority to the Government, to the 
prosecutors, to the Attorney General of the United States, to deal with 
organized crime, why does it not make sense to allow them to deal with 
Hamas or deal with a terrorist organization?
  The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up a Federal 
building. The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up the World 
Trade tower. They are real bad guys, and I have spent the bulk of my 
career as a U.S. Senator on both the Intelligence Committee and the 
Judiciary Committee passing laws and working to nail the Mafia. But if 
an emergency wiretap is good enough for John Gotti, why is it not good 
enough for the Unabomber? If the emergency wiretap is good enough for 
John Gotti, why is it not good enough for some wacko who blows up or is 
about to blow up a Federal building in Wilmington, DE, or Washington, 
DC?

  I want to repeat. To give this authority to the Government when it 
comes to organized crime, why not for terrorists?
  Of course, wiretapping is a powerful and intrusive tool. That is why 
the current wiretap statute contains a number of restrictions to 
prevent the abuse of emergency wiretaps, none of which would be changed 
by this amendment.

[[Page S3467]]

  Let me repeat. Only the top officials at Justice--the top three, 
those who have the most at stake in an investigation being blown by bad 
evidence--can authorize such a tap. Even then, they have to go to the 
court within 48 hours and must adhere to all the strict guidelines for 
getting a court order in the first instance. If they do not get the 
court order, none of the evidence is able to be used.
  Let me emphasize. This amendment does not in any way weaken what the 
Government must show to get a wiretap order. Law enforcement still must 
show that some particular person has or is about to commit some 
particular crime. And this provision only applies to cases of 
international domestic terrorism, which is further defined as--let me 
define what this would apply to and only what it would apply to: 
activities that involve violent acts, or acts dangerous to human life, 
and which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian 
population, or to influence the policy of the Government by 
intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a Government by 
assassination or kidnapping.
  Why, if in fact they believe that any one of those circumstances 
exist, should they not, with all the safeguards built in, be able to 
get an emergency wiretap?
  Let me say, although I have no illusions that this will pass, that I 
hope we will continue to demonstrate by the votes we have heretofore--
over 45 and as many as 48 of our 100 colleagues felt strongly about 
these issues. These are not frivolous undertakings. These are not 
frivolous motions. All but one of the amendments I have offered, I 
believe, has gotten over 40 votes. I think they have all gotten over 45 
votes, so we are pretty evenly divided on this. I just want to make 
sure that before final vote on this conference report, that I do 
everything in my power to make this a much more useful tool in fighting 
terrorism.
  Again, I know my colleague--and I respect him--is going to say if 
this passes it will kill the bill. I cannot believe that this will kill 
the bill. If we cannot put 35, or whatever number that is the number 
quoted by the House, Members of the House in the position where they 
have to yield on what would be an incredibly strong bill only because 
they are worried that we now allow terrorists to be treated the same 
way as John Gotti and the mob, then I think--I doubt whether they will 
vote that way because I doubt whether many of their constituents will 
keep them around if they vote that way. And quite frankly, if they vote 
that way, it is best for all to see. If they vote that way and defeat 
the conference report, we could come back with an amended report and 
pass what we have. So this will not kill the bill, but I am sure that 
is going to be stated.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of 
the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an 
immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency 
wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes 
that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered 
during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the 
Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of 
our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that 
could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to 
begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of 
cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal 
troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would 
unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, 
such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national 
security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is 
involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get 
emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
  Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement 
that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that 
authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
  Now, this proposal of the distinguished Senator from Delaware would 
expand those powers to any conspiratorial activity characteristic of 
domestic or international terrorism. I do not think that expansion is 
necessary to effectively battle the threat of terrorism. You can get 
that emergency authority now. In the Unabomber case, no question; when 
terrorist acts are threatened, no question. I think that the opinion of 
many, many experts would agree with this analysis.
  Now, it is also very important to note that it is not 35 
conservatives over in the House that are against this. The vast 
majority of people against this amendment happen to be liberals who are 
very concerned with an unwarranted expansion of wiretap authority and 
surveillance authority. I have to say now there is an increasing number 
of libertarian conservatives who are becoming more concerned over law 
enforcement and some of the approaches that have been taken. I 
personally believe that those concerns are not justified.
  On the other hand, they are legitimate concerns, and they arise 
primarily out of the Waco and Ruby Ridge and Good Ol' Boys Roundup, and 
other types of law enforcement mistakes that really were made. I have 
called them mistakes. Some people have felt that they should be 
characterized a little stronger than that.
  Frankly, I am proud of the law enforcement agencies of this country. 
I know these people. I know what wonderful people they are. I know how 
much they risk their lives for you and me. But we do not need this 
authority in order to do emergency wiretaps in these particular areas.
  At this point, I should like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from California, who has asked me for some time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity. I did have an 
opportunity to speak yesterday, but there is something I omitted to say 
that I very much felt was part of this discussion.
  What happened in Oklahoma City was brought home to us in California 
last Friday. Early that morning, about 9 o'clock, there was a phone 
call that came into the Vacaville headquarters of the Labor 
Department's Mine Safety Administration, and the caller said, using 
some expletives, ``You guys are all dead. Timothy McVeigh lives on.''
  Later that afternoon, a mine safety inspector by the name of Gene 
Ainslie, who worked with the Department of Labor, was returning from 
inspecting a mine in Sierra County and he dropped off his official car. 
He got into his pickup truck, met his wife, started out on Interstate 
80 to return to Sacramento, and the pickup truck exploded. A bomb had 
been placed on that truck.
  Gene and Rita Ainslie are hospitalized today in serious condition--
actually, today is their 32d wedding anniversary--Gene, with shrapnel 
in his legs and severe burns, and his wife with a broken ankle and a 
dislocated hip, but they survived. I and every Member of this body send 
them our fondest greetings and let them know that our hearts and 
thoughts are with them both.
  This was not a random act of violence. It was not a deranged 
individual on a shooting spree. It was a deliberate and, once again, 
targeted attack on a representative of the U.S. Government, an attack 
that was aimed at murdering a Federal employee. This is not an isolated 
incident, and we have all seen them happening. There will be a study 
that will released very shortly, an annual study of terrorism. And what 
it will show is that, for the first time, the United States of America 
is listed among the top 20 nations experiencing the highest level of 
terrorism and political violence in the world.
  I was shocked when I heard this. According to the study, there were 
44 incidents reported to the authorities in the United States, an 
increase of 200 percent since 1988. With this number of incidents, 
according to this study, we ranked ahead of Lebanon.
  I only say this because of the particular pertinence of the 
legislation before us today. We relate the legislation to the Oklahoma 
City bombing a year

[[Page S3468]]

ago, but in fact even last Friday an incident took place in the State 
of California.
  I think we also need to look at what is happening in our society that 
is fostering so much hatred and disregard for human life, and what can 
be done to restore the values of justice and respect for the rule of 
law that really made this the greatest democracy on Earth.
  I do not believe this is about restoring faith in our Government. I 
do not believe right thinking people resort to this kind of violence 
because they think they pay too much in taxes or because they are angry 
at Government red tape. I think there really is no justification and no 
rationale for this kind of behavior.
  But what does concern me is that the report I get from California is 
that there are very disspirited Federal employees, that morale is low, 
and that some, for example those affected by the bomb last Friday, 
really do not know that anybody cares about them. And what I want them 
to know, and I know I am joined by every Member of this Senate, is 
that, in fact, we do care about them. We do know that Federal 
employees--every member of the Army and the Navy who went to the Gulf 
war was a Federal employee, every park official is a Federal employee--
these people take the job not for the money, certainly, but because 
this is the way they want to serve their Nation.
  They are entitled to respect, and it is our job to see that they have 
that respect. So, as we pass this bill, which I hope we will do 
shortly, as a kind of living memorial to what happened in Oklahoma 
City, I think we have to do it with a view that these events are taking 
place in this Nation daily, just as it happened last Friday near 
Sacramento and Vacaville in the State of California.
  I say to Gene Ainslie, 56 years old, celebrating his 32d anniversary 
today with his wife Rita, and all those who labor as part of the 
Federal Government, that we Americans do respect them, that we do honor 
them, and we will do everything in our power to see that this kind of 
behavior is not inflamed, but rather it is put to an end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 5 minutes and 13 
seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Is there any other time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 4 minutes and 9 
seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Then we will both yield the remainder of our time.
  Can we proceed to the next amendment?


                           Motion To Recommit

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my colleagues will know this is the last 
motion I have.
  I offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions 
to delete the section relating to the study of Federal law enforcement. 
Senator Kohl of Wisconsin wishes to be added as a cosponsor as does, I 
believe, although I am not certain, Senator Nunn. I will check that. 
But Senator Kohl for certain.
  I send a motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Biden], moves to recommit 
     the conference report on the bill S. 735 to the committee of 
     conference with instructions.

  Mr. BIDEN. 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 deleting the text of section 806 of 
     the conference report.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, just for the sake of discussion, if there 
were 10 very important provisions in this bill when we passed it out of 
the Senate, it has come back to us with 4--I am not being literal--with 
fewer than we sent over. Fewer than 50 percent of the provisions that I 
think are important in this bill remain in the bill.
  In truth, when the Senator and I got to conference, there were 
probably only 10 percent of the provisions we thought important in the 
bill. To the credit of the Senator from Utah, he was able to get back 
additional provisions in the bill. For that I compliment him.
  What I have been fighting about all afternoon here is trying to add 
back provisions that I think were mindlessly removed and removed tools 
that we could make available to law enforcement to protect my children 
and me and all of us in this Chamber and around this country.
  This is the one portion of the conference report that I am seeking to 
delete that has made the bill worse than when it went out of here. Up 
to now I have been arguing that we sent a bill out of here with a lot 
of good things that the House stripped out and I wanted to put them 
back in. Not only did the House take out the bulk of the really good 
things that were invaluable to fight terrorism, but it added some 
things which I think are counterproductive. One of them is pandering to 
this concern of some Americans that the bad guys are the cops, the bad 
guys are the Government, the bad guys are the FBI or the ATF or the 
Justice Department.
  I do not believe we should go forward with an antiterrorism bill that 
has a study in it only of police and not terrorists. For that reason, I 
propose to delete the study of the police in this bill. I think it is 
more of an affront than it is a substantive problem. If we do not 
delete this, we will be faced with a conference report that studies 
cops but not terrorists.
  Let us remember who has literally laid down their lives in the 
defense of our Nation and our way of life. It is the Federal law 
enforcement officers, not the terrorists. This study will provide 
nothing but a forum for those who believe the Federal law enforcement 
is the enemy of the American people and not the protectors. We are 
unwittingly aiding and abetting that notion by deciding that, in a 
terrorism bill, we are going to study the cops.
  The study says, section 806, Commission on the Advancement of Federal 
Law Enforcement.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Commission on the Advancement of Federal 
     Law Enforcement'' (hereinafter in this section referred to 
     as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Duties.--The Commission shall review, ascertain, 
     evaluate, report, and recommend action to the Congress on the 
     following matters:
       (1) The Federal law enforcement priorities for the 21st 
     century, including Federal law enforcement capability to 
     investigate and deter adequately the threat of terrorism 
     facing the United States.
       (2) In general, the manner in which significant Federal 
     criminal law enforcement operations are conceived, planned, 
     coordinated, and executed.
       (3) The standards and procedures used by Federal law 
     enforcement to carry out significant Federal criminal law 
     enforcement . . .
       (4) The investigation and handling of specific law 
     enforcement cases . . .
       (5) The necessity for the present number of Federal law 
     enforcement agencies and units.

  Get that? We are going to study the necessity, the necessity of the 
present number of law enforcement agents and agencies. What is the 
implication of that? The implication of that is there are some bad law 
enforcement agencies out there. I assume this is the right's attempt to 
go after the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I do not know. That is who 
we are studying. We are going to study the cops, not the terrorists.
  We have to study the location and efficacy of the office or entire 
entity responsible, aside from the President, for the coordination of 
interagency bases of operation, programs and activities of all Federal 
law enforcement agencies.
  It goes on, by the way, for another half a dozen sections.
  Think about this. Many of us were local officials before we came 
here. How many times did a very small segment of our community come to 
tell us that we had to set up commissions and we had to set up outside 
organizations, we had to set up police review boards, and so on, 
because they did not like the cops? Sometimes it was necessary. But 
remember how good cops responded to this.
  I spoke with Director Louis Freeh today. He called me--the Director 
of the FBI. Of every single thing in the

[[Page S3469]]

bill, this is the thing that most concerns him because of what it says 
to the American people about what we in the Congress think about our 
law enforcement agencies, the very people who probably have captured 
the Unabomber; the very people who have gotten hold of, apparently, the 
man or men who blew up the World Trade Center, as well as the Federal 
building in Oklahoma City; the very people who, just a couple of weeks 
ago, outside of my State in neighboring Pennsylvania, were shot down 
dead, protecting people in Philadelphia--FBI agents, the very people 
who, increasingly, are losing their lives fighting crime and terrorism.
  These are the people who we are going to investigate. There is not 
even a parallel study in here to investigate malicious, to investigate 
organizations that, in fact, raise questions, to investigate--separate 
issue--terrorist, per se, organizations. We are going to investigate 
the cops.
  I can remember the years during the Reagan era. We talked about how 
demoralized the military felt and, to Reagan's great credit, in my 
view, one of the things I agreed with him on is he built up the morale 
of the military, after years of being beaten about the head after 
Vietnam.
  These guys need our support, Mr. President. These women need our 
support. They do not need us yielding to the NRA and others insisting 
on a study--a study of them in a terrorism bill.
  That is the study we are going to make. We are fighting terrorism, 
and every law Federal law enforcement officer in the Nation, guarantee 
you, knows that we spend an entire page of this bill--that is not true, 
half a page of this bill--laying out extensively what we are going to 
study, the people we are going to appoint to study this and, listen to 
this:

       (1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 5 members appointed--

  By whom?
  One member appointed by the President pro tempore in the Senate; one 
by the minority leader of the Senate; one by the Speaker of the House; 
one appointed by the minority leader of the House; one member who shall 
chair the Commission will be appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court.

       (2) Disqualification.--A person who is an officer or 
     employee of the United States shall not be appointed a member 
     of the Commission.

  How is that? Why cannot someone who is an officer of the U.S. 
Government--what a field day these wacko Freemen out in Montana are 
going to have when we pass this. I promise you, they are going to hold 
this up--some of them, may not be those guys--but other wackos and say, 
``See, we're right, the U.S. Congress thinks we have to study these 
people, and they don't even trust them enough to allow any Federal 
Government employee in any capacity to be on the commission.''
  I think this is humiliating, absolutely humiliating. 
Disqualifications: you are disqualified if you are an officer or an 
employee of the United States of America. That means any military 
person could not be on the commission; it means the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff could not be put on the commission.
  This is disturbing, and if you doubt what I am saying after this is 
over or before we vote, pick up the phone, call Louis Freeh, call any 
of the police officers you know and respect, call the people we count 
on to protect our lives that we are studying them.
  I see my friend from Utah is on his feet, and my friend from 
Wisconsin who wishes to speak in favor of this motion is here. I will 
be happy to yield to either one of them. How much time remains under my 
control, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank my friend from Delaware.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this motion to recommit, 
and I also want to speak generally about the terrorism measure before 
us. In sum, we should approve this legislation because it is the best 
we are likely to get and the best we can do for the victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing. But I believe the record should be clear that we 
should have done better.
  For many years, we have watched with growing concern as terrorist 
violence has escalated and reached closer to our homes. We can no 
longer ignore the fact that post-cold war violence knows no borders, 
and respects no distinction between soldiers and innocents.
  For that reason, Senators Biden and Specter and myself introduced 
legislation to fight international terrorism last February. We 
broadened our legislation to reach domestic terrorism after Oklahoma 
City. And building on this, the Senate overwhelmingly supported a 
strong, bipartisan proposal.
  That is not the proposal we are debating, however, today. We are now 
considering a version of that bill which is far more watered down.
  Still, if we cannot enact a strong and decisive antiterrorism bill, 
this measure will do at least some good. For example, it will still 
provide law enforcement with new weapons to choke off terrorist 
fundraising, new powers to deport suspected terrorists, and the ability 
to ``tag'' plastic explosives. All of these provisions will help reduce 
the threat of terrorism, all are constitutional, and in their entirety 
they make this measure worth saving.
  Unfortunately, other parts of the conference report are more 
problematic. The conferees deleted Senate provisions that would prevent 
new technology from undermining our wiretap laws. The conferees 
prohibited the military from using its resources to help fight chemical 
and biological weapons.
  And the conference also added some troubling items. For example, our 
subcommittee held 14 days of hearings on Ruby Ridge and issued a report 
that was praised across the political spectrum--by Janet Reno and by 
militia leaders. So why do we need to have a so-called Commission 
reopen this matter? Similarly, why does a study of cop-killer bullets 
suddenly appear in this bill? Is this really necessary? Is it really an 
important part of our fight against terrorism?
  I believe the answer is no.
  The best arguments against the motions to recommit seem to be this: 
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the expedient. Or we have to 
accept the bad in this bill to finally enact some of the good.
  Well, in a certain sense that is true. But America should clearly 
understand that this is not what we here in the Senate agreed to. 
America should know that this legislation has been used to forward a 
political agenda that does not advance the cause of preventing 
terrorist acts. America should understand that while this bill does 
something for the memories of the Oklahoma City victims, it could have 
done much more.
  So I will support this conference report--on balance it is better 
than no bill at all--and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this Commission will explore issues 
surrounding the future and mission of Federal law enforcement as we 
enter the 21st century. Among other things, the Commission will assess 
our efforts to prevent and investigate future acts of domestic and 
international terrorism. It will consider the pressing issues facing 
law enforcement as crime rates rise and as criminals become more 
sophisticated.
  I appreciate the fact that the law enforcement community is sensitive 
to this sort of review, but this Commission is different in focus, and 
we made it different in focus in the conference from the House-passed 
version. What was once a Waco-Ruby Ridge Commission with subpoena power 
is now a Commission to help Congress set Federal law enforcement 
priorities for the 21st century. It is a Commission which, in my 
opinion, will help law enforcement. I must say to my friends in the law 
enforcement community that I only learned of their concerns after the 
report was filed. If there are specific areas of the Commission's scope 
which are truly troublesome, I will work with them to try to address 
their concerns.
  It should be noted that the last time a Commission looked at Federal 
law enforcement was over 60 years ago in 1931. In that year, the 
Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, established by President 
Hoover, better

[[Page S3470]]

known as the Wickersham Commission, made public its recommendations to 
Congress.
  In a report signed by its chair, former Attorney General Wickersham, 
the Commission concluded that the growth of interstate crime, an 
interstate organized crime network, and interstate property and 
economic criminal activities, mandated the need for an increased 
Federal role in law enforcement.
  At that time, the findings and recommendations of that Commission 
were truly a major contribution to the fight against crime in this 
country.
  There is more I have to say on this. At the appropriate time, I will 
move to table both of the Biden motions, because this Commission is 
thought to be extremely critical by people in the House. We have bona 
fide it to make it more palatable to those who object to it, and I 
believe we bona fide it to a degree that it can be acceptable.
  On the other hand, we will continue to look at this language after 
this bill is passed, and I will continue to listen to law enforcement 
and others who are concerned and see what we can do to resolve their 
concerns.
  I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee for yielding this time.
  I support this legislation because I think it makes important 
improvements in our fight against terrorism and also in our fight 
against violent crime in the United States.
  The additional $1 billion will be an enormous help to the FBI and law 
enforcement officials to fight terrorism. The Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, which I chair in the Judiciary Committee, held extensive 
hearings after the Oklahoma City bombing. There is absolutely no doubt 
about the need for more resources by the FBI. The FBI Terrorism Center 
will provide a clearinghouse which will be of enormous aid and 
assistance.
  As is frequently the case, the bill is not entirely to my liking or 
the liking of anyone. There are a couple of provisions which concern me 
that I want to comment about because they may be cured at a later date.
  On the provision relating to expedited deportation, I am concerned 
about the absence of a right of confrontation. There is a 
constitutional right to confront your accuser in a criminal case. A 
deportation proceeding is not a criminal case. It is defined as a civil 
case, but the consequences are extreme because a person is ousted from 
the country. There are very important policy considerations to not 
allowing the right of confrontation because many of the witnesses are 
confidential informants and the disclosure of their testimony would be 
very harmful to ongoing law enforcement efforts.
  We do have an unclassified summary, included in an amendment offered 
by Senator Simon and myself, and I think that is about as far as we can 
go. But I believe we have to watch how the act works on this expedited 
deportation proceeding in the absence of a confrontation right.
  The restrictions on fundraising are also important. I have some 
concern about the limited judicial review, but on balance, this 
legislation against terrorism is very, very important. I am glad to see 
that we are finally acting on it.
  Attached to this terrorism bill, Mr. President, are provisions 
relating to modifications of habeas corpus which limit the time for 
appeals on death penalty cases. This has been a long time in coming to 
this country. It is something that I have worked on personally for more 
than a decade, based upon the experience I had as the district attorney 
of Philadelphia. We currently have the death penalty applied and then 
there are delays of up to 17 years while the cases languish in the 
Federal courts. Most of the arguments about these provisions are made 
by people who are opposed to the death penalty. The lengthy appeals 
process in the Federal court has, in effect, defeated the deterrent 
effect of the death penalty.
  I am personally convinced, Mr. President, that the death penalty is a 
deterrent. I saw many cases in my 12-year tenure in the Philadelphia 
district attorney's office, 4 years as an assistant DA trying murder 
cases and 8 years as district attorney, arguing appellate cases where 
the death penalty was imposed, and I am convinced that professional 
burglars do not carry weapons for fear of the death penalty when it is 
timely. But the only way a deterrent can be effective is if it is 
certain and reasonably swift. The time limits established in this bill 
are very, very important. They break new ground.
  I first offered these time limits, Mr. President, in 1990. After a 
long, tough debate we got these time limits established by a 52-to-46 
vote. They were incorporated again in 1991, passed by a narrow vote of 
58 to 40. In 1993, habeas corpus was left out of the crime bill, and I 
offered these provisions. They were defeated on a motion to table. 
Senator Hatch and I later collaborated on the Specter-Hatch bill. It is 
not too easy to come ahead of Senator Hatch on a bill, but I did. 
Senate bill 623 established those time limits and they are incorporated 
into this final bill. They will require that anyone on death row has to 
file a habeas corpus proceeding within 6 months if counsel is provided, 
under State law, or within 1 year if counsel is not provided.
  Mr. President, I think that we should have included provisions for 
counsel. They are not in this bill. I think that is a serious mistake. 
I hope it is a mistake we can correct at a later time.
  When you talk about inmates languishing on death row for up to 17 
years, you are talking about a problem for the system, you are talking 
about a problem for law enforcement, you are talking about a problem 
for the victims' relatives, and you are also talking about a problem 
for the defendants themselves on death row.

  The European Court on Human Rights decided that it was cruel and 
barbarous treatment, cruel and inhumane treatment, to keep someone on 
death row for 6 to 8 years. There was an extradition case which came up 
where somebody was accused of murder in the first degree in Virginia, 
which had the death penalty, and extradition was sought from Germany. 
The Court denied extradition on the ground that it would be cruel, 
barbarous, and unusual treatment to keep someone in jail for lengthy 
periods of time, for 6 to 8 years. Obviously, 17 years is an extension 
of the time which was held to be cruel and barbarous treatment.
  This bill provides a limitation on time so that the district court 
must decide the case within 180 days, 120 days for brief and hearing, 
and 60 days for decision. I have been involved in these cases in the 
State court. I have been involved in habeas corpus proceedings as a 
trial counsel in the Federal court. What the judges do is put these 
cases on the back shelf. There is no reason they cannot give these 
cases priority treatment. Now they will have to. The Congress of the 
United States recognizes judicial independence on what judges decide, 
but in terms of timetable, we have the authority to establish 
timetables, and we have done so under the Speedy Trial Act of years 
ago. Even in the jurisdictions which have a tremendous number of death 
penalty cases, like Texas, California, and Florida, the judge does not 
have more than one of these cases every year and a half. So they can 
put these on the expedited trial list.
  This bill also provides that there will not be repetitive decisions, 
because the court of appeals will be the gatekeeper.
  Mr. President, I inquire how much time I have remaining of my 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. That tells me how brief I have to be.
  We have had repetitive petitions filed. They have been a major 
irritant in the Federal court system. The idea of the Court of Appeals 
as a gatekeeper came to me from a law school classmate, Judge Jon 
Newman, chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  I am concerned, Mr. President, about a couple of provisions. I think 
the bill is too restrictive in limiting the ability to present a claim 
of innocence, requiring that it be proved by clear and convincing 
evidence. I joined Senator Levin in seeking to change that standard. 
But the reality is that the standard of proof is a very variable thing. 
I

[[Page S3471]]

think if it is established innocence, it may not make a whole lot of 
practical difference, but I think clear and convincing evidence is too 
high a standard from a theoretical point of view.
  Similarly, I do not favor the deference which is allowed to the State 
court decision, requiring that it has to be unreasonable in order for 
the Federal court to overturn it. But I think in a Federal habeas 
corpus proceeding, if the court thinks it is unreasonable, it will be 
able to overturn the decision, notwithstanding a standard that is 
really not as precise as it ought to be.
  I think the exhaustion requirement is misplaced here. We would be 
better off without it. But the net effect, Mr. President, is that this 
legislation is very good legislation taken as a whole. It will help out 
on terrorism with the additional resources. We have a tremendous 
problem in this country with the potential for terrorism. We have seen 
it in the World Trade Center bombing. We have seen it in Oklahoma City. 
In my capacity as the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I 
see a lot of problems which we cannot discuss openly, but we can move 
for the additional resources.
  On law enforcement, the death penalty is the law of the land in 37 
jurisdictions in this country. It is favored by more than 70 percent of 
the American people. If States do not want it, they do not have to have 
it. But the States that do have it ought to have it enforced. I think 
the overwhelming weight of authority is that it is a deterrent. These 
provisions are fair to the defendant. The European Court on Human 
Rights held it cruel and unusual punishment to impose a delay of more 
than 6 to 8 years.
  So it is fair to the defendant. Certainly it provides closure for the 
victims' families, and it will reinvigorate law enforcement by taking 
out the habeas corpus provisions which really made the death penalty a 
laughingstock. So in total I think it is a good bill.
  I commend all of my colleagues who have worked on it in the House. I 
think we will see passage of something which will be very, very 
significant for law enforcement in this country.
  Mr. President, violent crime has been one of the worst problems faced 
by the people of our country for several years. Homicide rates, fueled 
by illegal drugs, spiraled upward in the 1980's. While the rate of 
violent crime has recently started to decline, there remains far too 
much violence in our society. And while the violent crime rates are 
down, the future is grim: the rate of murder and violent crime 
committed by children under 17 is soaring, and the number of youth in 
our society is increasing. Therefore, we may expect another surge in 
violent crime unless we take action.
  There are many avenues to take to curb violent crime. We need a 
balanced approach that includes law enforcement, drug prevention and 
treatment, crime prevention programs and other means of steering 
juveniles away from drugs and crime.
  Based on my personal experience as an assistant district attorney and 
as district attorney of Philadelphia, I am convinced that the death 
penalty is an effective deterrent to violent crime. Criminal justice 
experts agree that in order for any penalty to be effective as a 
deterrent, it must be swift and certain. When years pass between the 
commission of the crime and the carrying out of the sentence, the link 
between crime and punishment is broken.
  The great writ of habeas corpus is the means by which criminal 
convictions and sentences in State court are reviewed in Federal court 
to ensure that the trial satisfied the requirements of the U.S. 
Constitution. It has been an indispensable safeguard of constitutional 
rights in this country, especially since the 1930's when the Supreme 
Court began reviewing State-court convictions in cases like the 
Scottsboro case. Unfortunately, the Federal courts have gone too far in 
habeas corpus cases. These cases drag on for years, and there is no end 
to them, as inmates, especially those on death row with nothing to 
lose, file endless rounds of petitions.
  There is no statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus 
petitions. This leads inmates who have been sentenced to death to wait 
until they are facing their imminent execution before filing their 
habeas corpus petition in Federal court. An example of this abuse is 
the case of Stephen Duffey in Pennsylvania. Duffey murdered his victim 
in 1984. His conviction was finally upheld by the Pennsylvania courts 
in 1988. His death warrant was not signed until 1994, 10 years after 
the murder. It was only when the death warrant was signed by the 
Governor that Duffey first sought habeas corpus review in Federal 
court.
  The requirement that all claims raised in Federal habeas corpus 
petitions be presented and fully adjudicated by State courts has also 
led to excessive delays and unsound rules as to whether Federal courts 
can even consider a habeas corpus petition.
  The case of Michael Peoples, which I have discussed with my 
colleagues on numerous occasions, shows graphically how the exhaustion 
rule leads to excessive formalism and delay. People was convicted of a 
vicious robbery in 1981, and his conviction was upheld by the 
intermediate Pennsylvania appellate court in 1983. The Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court denied review by an order that did not make it clear 
whether it was based on the merits or on the court's procedural 
discretion not to hear cases that do not present a substantial legal 
issue. Peoples then filed a habeas corpus petition in 1986. The 
district court denied the petition for failure to exhaust his State 
remedies. The Court of Appeals for the third circuit then reversed on 
the ground that the exhaustion requirement had been satisfied when the 
Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied review. Peoples then appealed to the 
U.S. Supreme Court, which granted review--making the case 1 of just 147 
it heard that year out of over 4,550 petitions for Supreme Court 
review--and reversed the third circuit. On remand, the third circuit 
issued a complicated ruling finding that Peoples' habeas petition 
contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and sent the case back 
to the district court. Years were spent considering just this initial 
procedural hurdle of exhaustion. I believe we would have been better 
served had the courts simply reviewed the substance of Peoples' claims.
  Another problem causing the excessive delay in carrying out death 
sentences has been the ability of inmates to file repeated habeas 
corpus petitions. Once again, I turn to an example I have often 
discussed with my colleagues, the case of Robert Alton Harris. After 
being convicted of a double murder in a California court in 1980, 
Harris filed over the next 14 years 10 petitions for State post-
conviction relief and five Federal petitions for habeas corpus. The 
Supreme Court of the United States considered 11 different applications 
relating to the Harris case. Many of the petitions Harris filed 
contained similar or overlapping claims, although none raised doubts 
about his guilt. Finally, after 14 years, Harris was executed. I regret 
to say that the Harris case is far from unique in its multiple habeas 
corpus filings.

  Abuse of the writ of habeas corpus has led to the death penalty being 
not an effective deterrent, but a mockery. Inmates on death row spend 
an average of over 9 years awaiting execution. And may wait much 
longer, with some cases dragging on 18 or more years. During these 
periods of lengthy delay in carrying out death sentences, the families 
of the victims are left in a sense of suspension, unable to put the 
tragedy behind them.
  Putting an end to these excessive delays will once again restore 
vitality to the death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent 
crime, which I know from personal experience it is. I have told my 
colleagues on numerous occasions over the past several years about the 
case of Cater, Rivers, and Williams, three young hoodlums who I 
prosecuted as an assistant district attorney. These three were planning 
on robbing a Philadelphia pharmacy. When Cater and Rivers saw that 
Williams was carrying a revolver, they told him they would not 
participate in the robbery if he took the weapon because they feared 
the death penalty. Williams put the gun in a drawer, but as the three 
were leaving, Williams sneaked it back into his pocket. Williams used 
the gun in the commission of the robbery to kill Jacob Viner, the 
pharmacist.
  All three men convicted and sentenced to death because, under the 
law, Cater and Rivers were equally responsible for Viner's murder as 
Williams.

[[Page S3472]]

Ultimately, Williams was executed, but Cater and Rivers had their 
sentences commuted to life imprisonment because they were unaware that 
Williams had carried the gun. As a prosecutor, this case was just one 
of many I encountered in which burglars and robbers refused to carry 
firearms because they feared the death penalty.
  In order to make the death penalty once again an effective deterrent, 
I have actively been attempting to streamline habeas corpus procedures 
since 1990. When the Senate considered anticrime legislation that year, 
I offered with Senator Thurmond an amendment to reform habeas corpus 
procedures to speed up and streamline the process. My amendment was 
adopted by the Senate, 52 to 46, and included in the final bill. 
Unfortunately, at the insistence of the House conferees, the provision 
was dropped from the conference report adopted the last day of the 
101st Congress.
  In the 102d Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 19, that was 
substantively identical to the 1990 amendment the Senate had passed. 
When the Senate considered anticrime legislation in 1991, however, 
Senators Hatch and Thurmond offered a slightly different habeas corpus 
reform amendment that was based on my legislation but included language 
limiting the scope of Federal review of State convictions. After 
careful consideration, I spoke at length in favor of that amendment and 
voted for it. This amendment also passed the Senate, 58 to 40, and 
included in the final bill that passed the Senate. When the bill went 
to conference, however, the House insisted on its habeas corpus 
provisions which, rather than reducing delays and streamlining the 
process, would have allowed for greater delay and more manipulation of 
the process. The conference report that contained that provision was 
filibustered in the Senate because of its habeas corpus provisions and 
never came to a vote.
  Once again in the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation similar to 
my previous efforts. When the 1993 anticrime bill was debated in the 
Senate, the managers decided that habeas corpus reform was too tough an 
issue to resolve and remove the bill's habeas provisions. I strenuously 
objected and brought before the Senate a bill I introduced to 
streamline the process. While many of my colleagues wanted to see us 
take action on the bill, it was tabled in order to keep the habeas 
issue from interfering with efforts, which I also supported, to secure 
Federal assistance for police hiring and prison construction.
  When Republicans took control of the Senate and House this Congress, 
I had high hopes that we would finally be able to resolve the issues 
that had previously derailed efforts to reform habeas corpus. Together 
with Senator Hatch, I introduced legislation, S. 623, to impose a 
statute of limitations on the filing of habeas corpus petitions, 
restrict the ability to file successive petitions, impose time limits 
on Federal court consideration of habeas petitions in capital cases, 
and encourage States to provide adequate counsel in capital habeas 
cases.

  In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, as the Senate developed 
antiterrorism legislation, I worked to ensure the inclusion in the bill 
of my habeas corpus reform legislation. As introduced and passed by the 
Senate, S. 735 includes in full the provisions of S. 623. When the 
House ultimately considered its antiterrorism bill, it included my 
habeas corpus reform language as well.
  As I mentioned, there are several aspects of the habeas corpus reform 
provisions that I would prefer were different. Most glaringly is the 
restrictive standard of review. The bill continue to require deference 
to State courts' findings of fact. Federal courts will owe no deference 
to State courts' determinations of Federal law, which is appropriate in 
our Federal system. However, under the bill deference will be owed to 
State courts' decisions on the application of Federal law to the facts. 
Unless it is unreasonable, a State court's decision applying the law to 
the facts will be upheld. I am not entirely comfortable with this 
restriction, but upon reflection I believe that the standard in the 
bill will allow Federal courts sufficient discretion to ensure that 
convictions in State court have been obtained in conformity with the 
Constitution.
  I also believe that the formulation in the bill is too restrictive in 
limiting successive petitions when the inmate raises a claim as to 
innocence. For this reason, I supported Senator Levin's amendment when 
the bill was initially considered by the Senate. That amendment, 
however, was tabled.
  Finally, I am disappointed by the absence of two provisions from the 
habeas corpus reform sections. Since 1990, I have been convinced that 
we can improve the process by eliminating the exhaustion requirement. I 
have tried repeatedly to do so. Both prosecutors and representatives of 
the defense bar have strenuously objected to these efforts, albeit for 
different reasons. Despite my certainty that the bill would be improved 
had we eliminated the exhaustion requirement, I am willing to move 
forward without its elimination in the interest of getting habeas 
corpus reform. I am also concerned that the bill does not establish 
standards for trial counsel in capital cases. In my previous efforts I 
had sought to ensure that the States provided adequate counsel in 
capital cases at both trial and in the post-conviction process. 
Improving trial counsel in capital cases is a critical step to making 
the trial rather than the habeas proceedings the central event in 
death-penalty cases. This bill, while seeking to ensure adequate 
counsel for habeas proceedings, does nothing to strengthen the minimal 
constitutional standard for ensuring adequate counsel at trial.
  Despite the provisions that concern me and the failure of the habeas 
reform to include two elements important to a fair and comprehensive 
scheme of habeas reform, I support the habeas corpus reform provisions 
of this bill. In politics, one learns that the best is the enemy of the 
good. Since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, we have seen 
its effectiveness as a deterrent sapped by delays attributable to 
defects in the habeas corpus system. The reforms included in this bill, 
while not perfect, will go a long way to restoring vitality to the 
death penalty as an effective deterrent to violent crime. I was 
therefore willing to sponsor these provisions in conjunction with 
Senator Hatch and am please to see them enacted. They are the 
culmination of many years of effort, and I am deeply satisfied by their 
adoption.

  We are, of course, dealing with an antiterrorism bill, and there are 
several provisions of the bill in addition to habeas corpus reform that 
I want to address briefly. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, I have long been interested in combating terrorism and have 
been very active in the area. In 1986, I introduced legislation that 
made it a Federal crime to commit a terrorist attack against a U.S. 
citizen anywhere in the world. I have also been active in seeking to 
limit diplomatic immunity for terrorist acts and for punishing acts of 
terrorism before an international criminal court. Earlier this 
Congress, I joined Senator Biden and Senator Kohl in introducing S. 
390, the fist omnibus counterterrorism bill introduced this Congress, 2 
months before the tragic Oklahoma City bombing that gave the issue such 
currency,
  I am pleased that the conference report retained my amendment to the 
Senate bill to authorize assistance to U.S. allies to support the 
purchase of counterterrorism technology if U.S. interests are at stake. 
My original amendment authorized $3 million for this assistance, but in 
the wake of the recent terrorist bombings in Israel that have put the 
peace process at risk, the amount authorized in the conference report 
has been increased to $20 million.
  I also want to express my support for the provision to require the 
Attorney General to study the availability of bombmaking manuals, 
evaluate whether current laws are adequate to address the problem, and 
determine whether anything else can be done constitutionally. My 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology held a hearing on 
this subject in May 1995. We were deeply troubled by what we heard. I 
am skeptical that the Government can do anything to restrict such 
information without violating the first amendment. I am pleased that 
the Attorney General, whose representative testified at our hearing, 
will study this matter and make appropriate recommendations.
  The conference report adds a provision to make it a crime to misuse

[[Page S3473]]

human pathogens and other biological agents. The terrorist threat from 
such agents is very real. My Terrorism Subcommittee is conducting a 
study on this issue and the threat from chemical agents as well. I know 
that the Governmental Affairs Committee has also held hearings on this 
subject. Recently, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the 
threat posed by the wrongful use of human pathogens. After that 
hearing, I joined several other members of the committee in writing the 
President to express our concern over the gaps in Federal regulation 
over the distribution of human pathogens. I am pleased to see the 
conference report include this provision.

  The conference report deleted the Senate-passed provision to 
authorize the broader use of multipoint wiretaps. I opposed the 
inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill and am pleased to see 
that the conferees deleted it. Current law strikes the appropriate 
balance, and I feared the Senate-passed provision went too far in 
threatening privacy interests.
  I want to note that, while the conference report alters the expedited 
deportation provisions of the Senate bill, adopted as part of an 
amendment I offered with Senator Simon and Senator Kennedy, it 
preserves the requirement that if classified information is used to 
deport an alien suspected of terrorist activity, an unclassified 
summary adequate to permit the alien to mount a defense must be 
provided to the alien. This requirement is the absolute minimum that 
due process will permit. Anything less could not have survived 
constitutional scrutiny, and I am pleased that this aspect of my 
amendment was retained.
  I am also troubled by the restrictions on domestic fundraising for 
foreign terrorist organizations. The Senate bill had allowed entities 
designated as terrorist to seek judicial review. That review would have 
accorded no deference to the administration's designation and allowed 
full and searching judicial review. The conference report, while 
retaining judicial review, establishes a deferential standard for that 
review. I am far less satisfied with this level of scrutiny. I am also 
concerned about the first amendment implications of this provision, 
restricting the ability of U.S. citizens to support favored causes. I 
acknowledge that the United States is a fertile ground of financial 
support for foreign terrorist organizations, but am nonetheless 
concerned about these infringements on U.S. citizens.
  Finally, I want to express my strong disappointment over the limited 
scope of the provision allowing U.S. citizens injured by foreign 
terrorist attacks to sue foreign nations who supported the attack in 
which they were injured. In 1993, I introduced the first bill in the 
Senate to allow U.S. victims of foreign terrorism to sue foreign 
countries they suspected of supporting the terrorists who injured them. 
My bill was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee.
  When the Senate considered this bill, it included a provision similar 
to but narrower than my bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee in 
1994, allowing suits against foreign nations for supporting terrorism 
only if the State Department had previously listed the defendant nation 
as a sponsor of terrorism. The House bill contained a broader provision 
allowing suit in the U.S. against any foreign country that did not 
provide due process in its own courts to remedy the injury to an 
American citizen.
  As the conference on this bill began, I wrote to each of the Senate 
conferees urging them to accept the House-passed provision. As the 
conference proceeded, I had thought that an acceptable compromise would 
be reached. I deeply regret that the conference report rejected any 
compromise and adhered to the Senate's provision, which allows the 
State Department to manipulate those foreign nations that are subject 
to suit in U.S. courts for injuring U.S. citizens. Giving the State 
Department this role is contrary to the rationale of the Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act and will allow impermissible foreign policy 
consideration to affect the ability of Americans to seek redress for 
their injuries caused by foreign governments. I will continue to work 
on this issue to remove this unfair limitation.
  This conference report is not all that could be hoped for. It does, 
however, represent a significant advance in our Nation's ability to 
fight terrorism without unduly compromising the rights and liberties of 
our citizens. As a result, I support the conference report and urge my 
colleagues to do so as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield back my 2 minutes. I understand the time of the 
minority is also expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HATCH. On behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I move to table both 
of the Biden amendments, with the understanding that these votes are 
stacked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Could I also ask unanimous consent that the first vote be 
15 minutes in length, but the last two votes be 10 minutes each?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am not 
sure. Could you give me just a second?
  Mr. HATCH. I will withhold that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. DOLE. Were the yeas and nays ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I 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. DOLE. The first rollcall will be 15 minutes, and the next will be 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. The third will be 10 minutes. The first vote is 15 minutes, 
the next two votes will be 10 minutes each.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just short of a year ago, this country was 
rocked by an attack on the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma 
City, OK. In the wake of that horrible incident, in only a matter of 
weeks, the Senate responded by passing the Dole-Hatch comprehensive 
antiterrorism legislation by a vote of 91 to 8 on June 7, 1995. Most of 
its provisions were drawn from earlier Republican crime packages. Over 
the past month, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to craft what 
would surely be the toughest antiterrorism bill ever to become law.
  This week, to honor the memory of those who suffered in Oklahoma, the 
Congress will send to President Clinton this landmark bipartisan 
antiterrorism bill. It has the support of the Republican Governor of 
Oklahoma, Frank Keating, and Oklahoma's Democratic attorney general, 
Drew Edmondson.
  Under the leadership of Senator Hatch, we have a measure which would 
give us the strong, upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish 
domestic and international terrorism.

  On March 27, 1996, I wrote to each of the conferees urging in 
particular that the three important provisions in the Senate bill be 
retained. The first facilitates a speedy removal of suspected foreign 
terrorists from U.S. soil. The second keeps foreign terrorists from 
raising money for their activities in the United States. The third 
makes membership in a terrorist organization the basis for exclusion 
from the United States.
  Each of these is a commonsense protection for all Americans. Each of 
these reforms is long overdue. I am pleased that Senator Hatch and the 
conferees insisted on keeping these important reforms in the bill.
  Most importantly, the bill contains comprehensive, effective habeas 
corpus reform, which has just been discussed by the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who, as he outlined, has 
been active in this area for many, many years.
  I did visit the San Quentin State Prison in California about 6 or 8 
weeks ago. There I met a father whose son had been murdered, a pretty 
clear-cut case, and it took 15 years--15 years--appeal after appeal 
after appeal before justice was meted out and the person who committed 
the murder was executed. There have been more people die of natural 
causes in that prison than of the death penalty, because of the 
frivolous appeals, appeal after appeal, costing the State millions and 
millions of dollars. Obviously, we need to protect

[[Page S3474]]

the rights of the defendant, particularly in capital cases, but in my 
view, it is a sad commentary that on death row in San Quentin, where 
there are about 400-some inmates on death row, more will probably die 
of natural causes than because of the death penalty.
  Maybe that will be changed because of this big, big step forward. I 
want to commend Senator Hatch, Senator Specter, and others who have 
worked on this a long time. It has been more than a decade of 
efforts. We are about to curb these endless, frivolous appeals of death 
sentences by those convicted of murder. Habeas corpus reform is the 
only substantive provision in this bill that will directly affect the 
Oklahoma City bombing case. It is the heart and soul of the bill.

  I sent a letter Monday to President Clinton. In that letter, I 
reiterated that we simply cannot continue allowing convicted murderers 
to appeal their sentences year after year. President Clinton has 
already vetoed a similar reform of the death penalty appeals process. 
The White House continued right up to the end, to argue for changes in 
habeas corpus that would essentially gut this reform. I called on 
President Clinton to support us in this important effort and sign this 
bill when it is sent to his desk. America will not tolerate a second 
veto of habeas corpus reform.
  I am very pleased, moreover, that the conference report provides 
victims of terrorism the ability to sue foreign governments responsible 
for terrorist acts in U.S. courts for the first time. On December 21, 
1988, 270 people were killed in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 
103. This brutal act of terrorism killed more Americans than died in 
Desert Storm.
  The Libyan Government was clearly responsible for this brutal crime. 
Yet, Libya refuses to extradite the Libyan intelligence officials 
responsible. I do not know anyone who believes there is a realistic 
chance that Qaddaffi will cooperate to bring killers he ordered to 
justice in a legitimate court.

  For too long, the survivors of the victims have had no recourse to 
seek compensation from Libya. That's why the Dole-Hatch bill last year 
contained authority for victims of international terrorism to sue 
terrorist states in U.S. courts. For 10 months the Clinton 
administration fought this provision. For 3 years the Clinton 
administration has had meetings with family members and had tough 
rhetoric--but there has been no real action to redress the tragedy of 
Pan AM flight 103.
  This week the Congress will enact this important reform. This is not 
rhetoric, this is action. This is historic and will, at long last, 
allow American victims of terrorism to use U.S. courts to try to seek 
compensation for the vicious acts of terrorist states.
  I am proud to have worked closely with the families of the Pan AM 103 
victims for many years, especially in the 1990 Aviation Security Act. 
Nothing we do can possibly replace their loss, but we can give them a 
avenue for partial justice.
  Mr. President, yesterday I received a letter from Victoria Cummock, 
president of the families of Pan-Am 103/Lockerbie. On behalf of those 
families, she urged support of this bill. She focuses on two 
provisions: habeas corpus reform; and opening up our courts to allow 
victims their day in court against governments that sponsor terrorism. 
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Families of Pan-Am 103 Lockerbie,

                                                   April 15, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Dole,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: On behalf of the victims' families of 
     Pan Am 103, I want to express our gratitude for your 
     leadership in the Anti-Terrorism bill (S-735), currently 
     pending in the Congressional Conference Committee. Your 
     support of two key provisions will enable American victims of 
     terrorism obtain justice in U.S. courts.
       More Americans have died at the hands of terrorists than in 
     Desert Storm, or in any other American war over the past 20 
     years. The bombing of Pan Am 103 was the single worst act of 
     terrorism against civilians in this country's history, 
     killing 270 people. For more than seven year, we--the 
     families--have waited for our country's help and support. 
     During that time terrorists blew up the World Trade Center 
     '93, injuring 1,000 and killing eight, and last year bombed 
     the federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168.
       On March 7, dozens of Americans victimized by terrorism 
     gathered in Washington, D.C. They included parents, widows, 
     and children from the families of Pan Am 103; 21 next of kin 
     from the Oklahoma City bombing; a daughter of Leon 
     Klinghoffer killed in the hijacking of the Achille Lauro; 
     Joseph Ciccipio and David Jacobson held hostage in Lebanon; 
     Scott Nelson tortured in Saudi Arabia, families of the 
     victims of the World Trade Center bombing, and Hans 
     Ephraimson-Abt, the 74-year old father of one of the victims 
     of KAL 007 shot down over the Soviet Union.
       At great personal and emotional expense, they gathered to 
     support provisions of the anti-terrorism bill that would 
     enable us to achieve justice: limit immunity granted foreign 
     states that sponsor terrorism, and reform Habeas corpus.
       Our motives are not political. Our lives and families have 
     been unraveled by terrorism, and justice is our only 
     consolation. Without justice and accountability there is no 
     deterrence. We want to live in peace knowing that other 
     Americans will be spared.
       Countries that hide behind their sovereign immunity to 
     avoid U.S. courts will continue to encourage and sponsor 
     terrorist acts. For example, Libya, which is accused of 
     ordering the bombing of Pan Am 103, is also accused of the 
     1989 bombing of a French UTA plane of Chad. It killed 171.
       Allowing convicted murderers to delay their execution for 
     17-24 years with their seemingly endless appeals is also 
     plainly wrong. It makes a mockery of our judicial system and 
     gives criminals more rights than their victims.
       Dead Americans have no voice, their families must speak for 
     them. Four weeks ago the President made a request to Congress 
     to provide aid to the families of four Cuban Americans shot 
     down by Cuba. Has the President forgotten the hundreds of 
     other Americans murdered by terrorists? The promise that he 
     made to us before his election?
       This nation cannot continue to allow countries to kidnap, 
     torture, and murder Americans and escape accountability. The 
     United States allow corporations to seek restitution in U.S. 
     civil court. U.S. law permits restitution for sabotaging a 
     plane full of chickens--but not people. This is an outrage. 
     The message sent to countries sponsoring terrorism is that it 
     is safe to target and kill Americans.
       I want to be able to tell my three small children that 
     America stands with us and that their father's constitutional 
     right to justice (and that of other victims) will no longer 
     take a back seat to the rights of terrorists. By maintaining 
     the FSAI and Habeas Corpus provisions in the final language 
     of the anti-terrorism bill, Congress will give us the 
     opportunity to help ourselves. The changes we advocate are 
     right for all Americans; this reform is overdue.
       Thank you for your commitment in helping American victims 
     of terrorism. Our hopes and prayers will be with all the 
     Congressional Committee members during their final 
     deliberations.
           Sincerely,

                                          M. Victoria Cummock,

                                         Widow of John B. Cummock;
                                                        President.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in a few moments we will pass this bill. The 
Congress will put the national interest ahead of partisan interests. 
Those who have delayed passage of this historic bill argue that this is 
a weak bill. This is wrong. It is unfair to those who have suffered or 
may suffer in the future from the evil handiwork of terrorists and 
other criminals.
  My colleagues have opposed these efforts. We will pass this bill 
today. As Diane Leonard, whose husband Don was killed in the Oklahoma 
City bombing, said yesterday: ``It is the right thing to do.'' Then I 
hope President Clinton will do the right thing and sign the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the status of the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table the motion to recommit offered by the 
Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was under the mistaken belief that we 
would have some extra time, but I would like to give some time before 
final passage, equally divided. I would like to be able to give 3 
minutes to the two distinguished Senators from Oklahoma. That would 
mean 6 minutes to the minority.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have 12 minutes, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, as I understand, prior to 
the final vote?
  Mr. HATCH. Prior to the final vote.
  Mr. FORD. Six minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Divided between Senator Biden and myself, and I make sure 
the----

[[Page S3475]]

  Mr. FORD. Six minutes on each side?
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to 
recommit offered by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] relative to 
revising existing authority for wiretaps.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     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
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     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
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The question occurs on agreeing 
to the motion to table the motion to recommit with instructions 
relative to deleting section 806 of the conference report. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand before the final vote there 
are 6 minutes allotted to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. Senators to the left 
of the Chair will please take your conversations to the cloakroom. The 
Senate will please come to order.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my 
colleagues today in voting on these motions to recommit and the strong 
support of 40 to 48 Senators we have gotten on each of these votes. I 
appreciate that.
  In the 6 minutes that I have to close, let me just suggest two 
things. There is a good deal of change that has been made in the habeas 
corpus provisions of the law, which, in my view--a broken record--will 
do nothing to prevent terrorism. The habeas provision in this bill 
deals primarily with State crimes, and the terrorism crimes we are 
concerned about--Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center bombing, et 
cetera--are Federal crimes. It will not affect it at all.
  But there is a provision in the bill that I would like to say 
something about. There's a section that says:

       An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a 
     person in custody, pursuant to the judgment of a State court, 
     shall be granted with respect to any claim that was 
     adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, unless 
     the adjudication of the claim, one, resulted in a decision 
     that was contrary to or involved in unreasonable application 
     of a clearly established Federal law as determined by the 
     Supreme Court, or resulted in a decision that was based on an 
     unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
     evidence presented.

  I would like to make this brief observation.
  As things now stand, Federal courts take State court decisions very 
seriously. They are not writing on a blank page and ignoring State 
court decisions right and left. In fact, court watchers who pay close 
attention to the cases tell me that Federal courts grant relief only 
when it is pretty clear that someone's constitutional rights have been 
violated. So it seems to me that even under this provision of the law 
we are now changing, which I think is inadvisable to change, but even 
under this provision, if Federal courts think that State courts are 
right on the Constitution, they will uphold it. And if they are wrong, 
they will not.
  So if a State court makes an unconstitutional determination, the 
Federal courts will, and should, continue to say so. Therefore, I think 
this is much less onerous--unnecessary but much less onerous--than, in 
fact, it may appear on its face.
  If a Federal court concludes the State court violated the Federal 
Constitution, that, to me, is by definition--by definition--an 
unreasonable application of the Federal law, and, therefore, Federal 
habeas corpus would be able to be granted.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am truly gratified at the action that I 
believe the Senate is about to take. Passage of this legislation is 
urgently needed. This bill, passing at this time, will be a memorial to 
the victims of terrorism. I was so moved the other day, when survivors 
of terrorism came here to Washington to plead again for enactment of 
this legislation.
  Since the Senate first acted last June, we have been working to reach 
this point. The result of that effort is a conference report that, in 
my view, deserves the support of every Member here. This legislation 
represents a landmark effort to address an issue of grave national 
importance--the prevention and punishment of acts of terrorism. This 
bill includes long-needed reforms to Federal habeas corpus procedures 
and provides vital provisions for victims of terrorism and other 
Federal crimes. It also adds important tools to the Government's fight 
against terrorism, and does so in a temperate manner that is protective 
of civil liberties.
  I have insisted from the beginning that this bill address the needs 
of the victims of terrorist acts, so I am particularly pleased about 
the provisions we have included for them. Our commitment to the victims 
of terrorism is evident from the first two titles of the conference 
report. These provisions are the heart and soul of this bill, and are 
the only provisions which can provide solace to the victims of past 
acts of terrorism, such as Oklahoma City and Lockerbie:
  Habeas corpus reform: This legislation includes tough, fair, and 
effective reform of Federal habeas corpus procedures. I have been 
fighting, along with

[[Page S3476]]

crime victims across our Nation, for the enactment of this legislation 
for nearly 20 years. Finally, heinous criminals will no longer be able 
to thwart justice and avoid just punishment by filing frivolous appeals 
for years on end. Finally, crime and terrorism victims will know that 
our justice system means what it says.

  Mandatory victim restitution: The mandatory victim restitution 
section of this bill is the Hatch-Biden measure, and will ensure for 
the first time that Federal courts must order violent criminals and 
terrorists to pay restitution to their victims. We all know that a 
price can never be placed on the terrible costs these crimes inflict. 
We also know that in far too many cases, repayment will fall far short 
of the cost we can calculate. However, with this bill, victims will 
finally have the solace of knowing that the justice system recognizes 
their loss, and that the perpetrators of evil are held accountable.
  Terrorism by foreign countries: This bill takes the important step of 
ensuring that Americans who are harmed by foreign governments 
committing or directing terrorists acts can sue those governments in 
American courts. Lawless nations will no longer be able to hide their 
terrorist acts behind the rules of international law that they 
otherwise flaunt.
  Oklahoma City trial: Finally, by providing for closed circuit viewing 
of the Oklahoma City trial by the bombing's victims and survivors, this 
bill also will ensure that these courageous people can observe justice 
being done, while still ensuring a fair and just trial for the accused.
  The terrorism bill we are about to finalize also is a tough, 
effective measure. With its enactment, we will be better able to 
prevent and deter future terrorist acts. Moreover, we will be better 
equipped to respond to and punish these heinous acts should they occur.
  First, for the first time since the tragic bombing of Pan Am flight 
103, it will be required that all plastic explosives manufactured, 
sold, imported into, or exported from the United States include 
chemicals to make them detectable by airport security. This provision 
will help protect airline passengers from terrorist attacks and fulfill 
our obligations under international agreements.
  Second, this legislation include important new measures to ensure 
that access to dangerous human pathogens--like the agent that causes 
bubonic plague--is properly limited. This will help ensure that the 
American people are not victimized by terrorists engaging in such 
tactics, such as the Japanese cult Aum Shinri Kyo that released cyanide 
gas in a crowded Tokyo subway.

  Third, the bill we will send to the President provides law 
enforcement with the tools necessary to combat the threat of nuclear 
contamination and proliferation that may result from illegal possession 
of nuclear materials.
  Fourth, this antiterrorism bill will prohibit, in a constitutional 
manner, fundraising in this country by specific, designated foreign 
terrorist groups. Once designated, these groups will no longer be 
permitted to use American-raised funds to spread terror here and 
abroad.
  Fifth, this bill provides the Federal Government with the tools it 
needs to exclude representatives and members of foreign terrorist 
groups from the United States, and provides the Government with the 
ability, within the bounds of due process, to deport alien terrorists 
without compromising national security.
  This bill also: Increases the penalties for crimes committed with 
explosives, as well as conspiracies to commit such crimes; curtails the 
use of domestic and foreign use of weapons of mass destruction; 
addresses the increasingly global nature of terrorism, increasing 
penalties for terrorist acts that transcend national boundaries; 
imposes strict penalties for retaliatory assaults or murders of Federal 
officers or employees; provides emergency response training to State 
and local law enforcement; and harmonizes security measures to provide 
Americans flying to and from the United States on foreign airlines with 
the same level of protection they receive for domestic flights.
  In short, this bill reflects the unity of purpose and clarity of 
resolve with which we must meet the terrorist threat.
  I am proud of the bill we have crafted. It is time for us to finish 
the job, and pass this conference report. In doing so, it is my hope 
that we recall the Americans who died at the hands of terrorists, not 
only last month, but over the last 15 years or more. In Beirut, in 
Lockerbie, in New York, and in Oklahoma City, victims of terrorism have 
had their lives stolen by evil persons pursuing selfish and twisted 
agendas. We can honor these victims by completing the task at hand.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
junior Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think anything that is said further 
tonight on this bill will be redundant, but I think some things are 
worthy of redundancy. I think it is virtually impossible for anyone in 
this Chamber who was not in Oklahoma City when the tragedy happened--
the bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building--to really appreciate 
the significance of the trauma, the disaster, the emotions at the time.
  I think it was well said in a magazine called Oklahoma Today, talking 
about the first wave of the super-hot gas moved at 7,000 miles an hour, 
fast enough for someone 10 feet away to be hit with a force equal to 37 
tons, and in about half a second the gas dissipated only to be replaced 
by an equally violent vacuum. The resulting pressure waved outward, 
lifting the building up and causing beams, floor slabs, and connections 
to weaken and collapse.
  When the pressure wave passed, gravity took over. Nine stories of the 
north side of the building pancaked, creating a crater 30 feet deep. 
People who had been on the ninth floor ended up in the basement.
  I think one of the most memorable experiences I had was the very 
first night. The firefighters had arrived. They were all volunteers. 
They were taking turns 1 hour at a time crawling on their bellies 
through there to pull out parts of bodies. I actually saw on the first 
floor human hair and one hand that was stuck to a wall. As they pulled 
the bodies out--some alive, some dead--they did not know at that time 
whether or not it would come crashing down and kill them. When one 
group came out after an hour, there was blood all over the individuals. 
Then you could hear the cadence, almost like you heard in World War II, 
of the firefighters marching down the streets to take their turn, and 
this is what we experienced there.
  The majority leader a few minutes ago said the habeas provision is 
the heart and the soul of this bill. It may be that some of you do not 
agree with that, but I can assure you the families of the 168 victims 
who died in the Murrah Federal Office Building, they believe that, 
because they came up here 2 months after the explosion and sat across 
the table from many of the Senators in here and said, ``The one thing 
we want in legislation is habeas reform. We do not want the same thing 
to happen as happened when Roger Dale Stafford in Oklahoma murdered 
nine Oklahomans and sat on death row for 20 years.''
  So I guess all I can say is, on behalf of the families of the 168 
victims, those who lost their lives in the Murrah Federal Office 
Building, I appeal to you to pass this bill tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, so that the majority gets to go last, I 
have 2 minutes remaining.
  What the Senator from Oklahoma just read was moving and significant. 
I am going to vote for this bill, but I am dumbfounded why, after 
reading what he just read and us knowing that, that we all voted in 
this Chamber to allow someone to teach somebody how to build another 
fertilizer bomb, even if the person teaching knew or had reason to 
believe it would be used for a purpose like that.
  Hear what I just said? ``Intended.'' If a person teaches someone how 
to build a fertilizer bomb intending that that be able to be done, a 
crime to be able to be committed with it, we just voted not to put that 
prohibition into the law.
  And now that you all are here and did not have a chance to listen to 
this before, I hope you know, after we pass this bill, you will join me 
tomorrow, or

[[Page S3477]]

the next day, to pass a law that says you cannot do that, because you 
inadvertently voted, when I tried to put it back in the law, to let 
someone now, legally, over the Internet or any other way, teach someone 
how to build a fertilizer bomb, give them the details and intend that 
it be used that way, and it is not prohibited.
  So I hope tomorrow when I am here, or the next day, listening to what 
the Senator from Oklahoma accurately stated and believes deeply that we 
should never let this happen again; we will correct the mistake that we 
made here today.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the last 3 minutes to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to thank the majority leader 
for setting aside the immigration bill to take up this bill. I informed 
the majority leader and the Speaker some months ago of my earnest 
desire to pass this before this Friday.
  This Friday is the 1-year anniversary of the worst civil disaster 
that we have had in U.S. history: 168 innocent men, women, and children 
were murdered in the Murrah Building bombing.
  The majority leader responded to that request, and I appreciate it.
  I also want to compliment Senator Hatch and Senator Biden and their 
staffs, and also Chairman Hyde, for their willingness over the last 2 
weeks when we were in recess to work out the differences, because the 
bills between the House and the Senate had a lot to offer, but there 
are significant differences in the bills.
  But there were significant differences. They worked out those 
differences. They came up with compromises. That was not easy during 
the break. That is not often done. But they did it so we can meet this 
deadline. I very much appreciate their cooperation.
  Mr. President, this is vitally important legislation. As my colleague 
from my State, Senator Inhofe, mentioned, this is very important 
legislation to the families of the victims. There are hundreds of 
people involved. Yes, there are 168 individuals who lost their lives, 
but they have hundreds of family members, and actually I think it is in 
the thousands, the relatives that are directly impacted, that lost a 
cousin, lost a dad, lost a son, lost a daughter.
  We met with those individuals. They want this bill passed. This bill 
may not be perfect. I know Chairman Hatch said that some of the other 
provisions that were alluded to today, that he is happy to introduce 
those and work on those in separate legislation. I compliment him for 
that. But if we recommitted this bill, we would not have this bill. It 
would not pass.
  So I want to thank my colleagues on this side that voted against the 
motions to recommit. This is a conference report. If we are going to 
get it passed, we are not going to be able to recommit it. So I will be 
happy to work to make future improvements. But this is a good bill. It 
does have habeas corpus reform. It ends the abusive appeals. That is 
certainly good for taxpayers and victims.
  It does allow closed-circuit TV for families in the Oklahoma City 
bombing. Right now the trial, regrettably, is going to be in Denver. 
That is over 500 miles from Oklahoma City. They want to be able to view 
the trial and not have to move their families to Denver. We requested 
assistance from Justice, but they did not make it happen. We make it 
happen in this legislation. That is good news for their families. 
Several of us will be with several thousand people. That will be good 
news for Oklahomans.
  Finally, I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support. We put 
mandatory victim restitution in this legislation, something that the 
Senate has supported countless times. That is very significant and 
important and one of the crime reform packages we have had. We passed 
it in the Senate. Unfortunately, it has not come out of conference with 
the House. It is in this bill. Again, I want to thank my colleagues, 
Senator Hatch and Senator Biden, because they supported that provision.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this 
bill. I will be very disappointed if this bill only has 60 or 65 votes. 
I hope it has 100 votes. This bill may not be perfect, but it is good 
legislation. Also, I would like to urge the President of the United 
States to sign it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Governor of the State of Oklahoma to the President of the United States 
urging that the President sign this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                State of Oklahoma,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                Oklahoma City, OK, April 16, 1996.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     United States of America, The White House, Pennsylvania 
         Avenue, Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: Congress will soon pass legislation 
     which will effectively combat terrorism. Having dealt with 
     the tragedy and aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, I 
     believe it is imperative that you sign this legislation into 
     law.
       In addition to the tough law enforcement provisions aimed 
     at terrorists and their organizations, it includes provisions 
     of particular interest to those of us in Oklahoma.
       First and foremost is effective death penalty reform, which 
     will end the delays and frivolous appeals by convicted death 
     row inmates. The importance of this provision has been made 
     clear by the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City 
     bombing, who have worked tirelessly to see this reform become 
     law so that justice may be swift and sure.
       Second is a provision allowing for the closed circuit 
     viewing of the trial by families and victims who cannot be 
     accommodated by the courtroom in Denver. The viewing would 
     take place in Oklahoma and would allow these families and 
     victims to fully benefit from our victims' rights laws which 
     stipulate they be entitled to monitor the trial proceedings.
       Mr. President, this bill deserves to be signed into law. 
     For the families and victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, it 
     represents a significant step in bringing closure to this 
     terrible tragedy. I urge you to approve this vital change in 
     our nation's laws to combat terrorism. It is the right thing 
     to do.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Frank Keating.

  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Byrd
     Feingold
     Hatfield
     Kennedy
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mack
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think this is a big victory for all of 
America, but most of all for those folks who suffered in Oklahoma City, 
OK, and other terrorist incidents in the world.
  I want to acknowledge the work of some people who were critical to 
the passage of this bill--in particular, the

[[Page S3478]]

majority leader. The majority leader, Bob Dole, is to be commended for 
his leadership. Once again, Senator Dole has delivered for the American 
people. I personally express my gratitude to our distinguished majority 
leader.
  I also want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Henry Hyde over in 
the House, and my fellow conferees, Senators Thurmond, Simpson, Biden, 
and Kennedy. Senators Nickles and Inhofe deserve mention, too, because 
they never let this institution forget who this bill was for. All of 
the survivors from the Oklahoma tragedy and the Pan Am disaster were 
critical to this bill's passage. So they all deserve our thanks.
  I want to mention a few of the other people who worked on this bill, 
as well--in particular, the staffers who worked long hours out of deep 
commitment to public service. Jeanne Lapatto, Christina Rios, Nick 
Altree, Mike Ashburn, John Gibbons, and Ed Richards were invaluable. 
Ashley Disque--a young woman who came to the committee as an L.C. and 
has not looked back--epitomized initiative. Mike Kennedy, an attorney 
who is going to go places, in my opinion, worked around the clock. 
Finally, I want to commend Mike O'Neill, our crime counsel. Mike is 
going to be leaving here in a few weeks to clerk for Justice Thomas 
over at the Supreme Court. Our loss is the Supreme Court's gain. Quite 
simply, Mike O'Neill, more than any other staffer, made this bill 
happen. Manus Cooney, our committee staff director and senior counsel 
is also to be commended.
  Some of Senator Biden's staff should be mentioned as well--Demetra 
Lambros and Chris Putala are true professionals. Also, I would like to 
thank Valerie Flappan of the legislative counsel's office.
  I also want to compliment the other House conferees and, in 
particular, Congressmen Hyde, McCollum, Schiff, Buyer, and especially 
Bob Barr from Georgia, who worked very hard on this bill and has 
provided an awful lot of input on this bill. Another staffer who should 
be mentioned here is Pat Murray, Henry Hyde's able and dedicated 
counsel who, in working with our staff, helped craft a true terrorism 
bill. Paul McNulty also deserves credit. There are so many others I 
would like to commend at this point. But I will end at this point and 
thank all of these good people for the good work they have done.
  I pay respect to my distinguished colleague, the minority leader on 
the Judiciary Committee. He is a tough, tough opponent. He is a very 
good advocate. It is one of the privileges in my life to be able to 
work with him on the Judiciary Committee and to be able to have this 
type of a relationship, and still to occasionally fight each other on 
the floor and, hopefully, walk away still friends.
  In particular, I want to make all those congratulations.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________