[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3599-H3605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 735,
ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 405
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 735) to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I many consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
general leave
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor today the
rule providing for the consideration of the conference report on S.
735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which
was passed overwhelmingly by the other body last evening. This is a
simple, fair rule which waives all points of order against the
conference report, and against its consideration, in order to permit
the House to consider provisions which may exceed the scope of
differences between the House and the Senate.
Ms. Speaker, the devastating terrorist attack that took place in
Oklahoma City nearly 1 year ago today serves as a poignant and powerful
reminder that the threat of domestic terrorism is a very real and
present danger in our society. One hundred and sixty-eight innocent
people, including dozens of children, lost their lives in that attack.
Combined with the nearly 500 people who were injured in the blast, the
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City ranks as the worst
terrorist incident ever to take place on American soil. Unfortunately,
it was not the first. The bombing of New York's World Trade Center
building in 1993, Americans for the first time faced the sobering
prospect that terrorists are at work right here in the United States.
Among the lessons we have learned from these tragic events is that
law enforcement must be prepared to respond effectively and immediately
to terrorism when it occurs. More importantly, as technology rapidly
advances, law enforcement officials at all levels must have access to
reasonable and legitimate tools that will enhance their ability to
prevent terrorist acts before they result in the loss of human life.
The difficult task which this body has faced during the past year has
been to balance the needs of law enforcement with the need to preserve
essential civil liberties. Today, under the terms of this simple,
straightforward rule, we will debate a conference report that I believe
improves upon the House-passed bill, while still assuring the Federal
Government an appropriately limited but responsible role in the fight
against terrorism.
Several key provisions have been added to the House-passed bill in
this bipartisan conference report that will assist our country's fight
against terrorism. For example, it provides procedures to allow for the
removal of alien terrorists, fairly and with due process, but also with
adequate protections to safeguard sources and methods of classified
information.
It provides improved steps for designating foreign terrorist
organizations, and contains provisions that severely restrict the
ability of terrorist groups to raise funds in the United States. As we
all know, Mr. Speaker, money is the lifeblood of these ruthless
organizations, and if we cut off their flow of funds, including the
blocking of financial transactions, we will surely diminish their
ability to carry out these cowardly, heinous acts here at home and
abroad.
With regard to the exclusion of alien terrorists, the conference
report authorizes State Department officials overseas to deny entrance
visas to members and representatives of those same groups deemed to be
foreign terrorist organizations, and it also allows the United States
to stop or prohibit assistance to foreign countries that do not
cooperate with our antiterrorism efforts.
And finally, in a move that will hopefully prevent future tragedies
like the loss of Pan/Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the
conference report requires that foreign air carriers traveling to and
from United States airports follow the identical safety measures that
our own American air carriers must follow under regulations issued by
the FAA.
Equally important are other provisions contained in the conference
report, including three key elements from the Contract With America:
First, there are reasonable reforms to curb the abuse of habeas corpus
by convicted criminals. This will help, finally, to free the judicial
process from endless and frivolous appeals from prisoners convicted of
capital offenses while victims and families of victims wait helplessly
by for years and years for justice to finally be done.
Second, improved procedures for deporting criminal aliens are
included which allow judges to order the deportation of aliens
convicted of Federal crimes at the completion of their sentence.
Third, the bill calls for mandatory victim restitution. Securing the
right to adequate restitution is a long overdue victory for crime
victims and their families. For too long, our criminal justice system
has devoted significant attention and resources to the plight of
criminals. As a result, crime victims have often suffered twice--first
at the hands of the criminals, and then by an inadequate, insensitive,
inattentive justice system. By requiring fair restitution, we will give
victims of crime some of the ranking and legal status they deserve
while they recover from their unwanted and unwelcome trauma.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this debate is not about who, or
which
[[Page H3600]]
political party, is more committed to fighting terrorism. I think we
would all agree that keeping our Nation's cities and communities safe
and secure is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is one of the
fundamental duties and responsibilities of government.
This conference report accomplishes the very difficult task of
providing our citizens with an increased level of safety and security,
without trampling on our rights in the process. These provisions
represent necessary, but narrowly drafted tools that will go a long way
toward assisting our law enforcement professionals in combating the
genuine threat of international terrorism.
So as we near the 1-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, I
urge the House to accept the work of the conferees and send a clear
signal to would-be terrorists that their cowardly, destructive acts
will not be tolerated by the American people or by this institution.
For the victims of Oklahoma City and victims of other tragic events,
and their brave families, I urge your support for this conference
report.
The Rules Committee reported this rule by unanimous voice vote
yesterday, and I urge colleagues to give it their full support. Let's
pass this fair rule, and let's pass the conference report without any
further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the tragic anniversary we will
observe tomorrow. The loss of 168 men, women, and children in Oklahoma
City because of an irrational and immoral act, has left a scar on our
national psyche that will never really heal. But, Mr. Speaker, if
something good is to come from such tragedy, then let it be a greater
awareness that the freedoms we enjoy in this great Nation are indeed
precious and that they are in need of protection.
Let us never forget those who died, those whose blood was spilled,
those whose lives were irrevocably and irreversibly changed. Let us
honor them by working diligently to protect the freedoms that embody
the moral fabric of this great country of ours. The barbarous actions
of one individual or of a group cannot be allowed to undermine the
freedoms and liberties that constitute the American way of life. But,
as we know all too well, in the world today, we must be ever vigilant
and ever ready to come to the aid of those ideals we all hold so dear.
This legislation has come about because of the act of a terrorist.
The conference report is not perfect: some Members may oppose it
because of provisions relating to habeas corpus reform. Others may
oppose it because it does not contain new wiretap authority for law
enforcement officials to trace and track homegrown as well as
international terrorists operating within our borders. But, I submit,
it is the best we can produce when we must balance the need to
vigorously defend and protect our safety while simultaneously defending
and protecting our freedoms and liberties. I hope the legislation
before us achieves that end.
This conference agreement does give us some tools which will help
protect our shores and our people from the threat of international
terrorism. The conference is to be commended for including new
authorities to identify and designate foreign terrorist organizations,
to prohibit fundraising on behalf of such terrorist organizations, and
to exclude or remove alien members of those groups from our country.
These authorities are essential if we are to begin to deal effectively
with the unwelcome and unwanted intrusion of international terrorism.
However, Mr. Speaker, because the conference report does not contain
language granting law enforcement agencies new wiretap authority, I am
going to oppose ordering the previous question on this rule. While I am
gratified that the conferees did include new powers to deal effectively
with international terrorism, there is a concern that the fight against
domestic terrorism is seriously handicapped because the wiretap
authorities requested by the Department of Justice are not part of this
agreement.
Therefore, a vote against the previous question is a vote to enhance
this legislation by granting new wiretap authority that will allow law
enforcement officials to keep up with the modern technologies used by
almost every American, including those who plan barbarous acts like the
one which killed 168 men, women, and children 1 year ago tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
for explaining the rule. It is not necessary to repeat her explanation.
Mr. Speaker, this Friday will mark the 1-year anniversary of the
bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. There have been a
number of terrorist incidents like that in 1993. The New York Trade
Center building was another terrible tragedy.
The deliberations on this bill have demonstrated that Members on both
sides of the aisle do hold very strong, sincere views about the powers
that should be granted to law enforcement to track and prosecute
terrorists.
The balance between public safety and order, and individual rights,
is always a difficult dilemma in a free society.
For this reason, significant time was needed to consider this
legislation, and certainly the time has been devoted to it.
Today we have before us the final product. It achieves, I think, a
fair balance and includes many provisions to not only prevent and
punish terrorism, but also includes the ultimate punishment for those
who would kill others, the effective death penalty.
As a matter of fact, the very first provision in this conference
report, title I provides for a reform of the death penalty process with
specific time limitations to insure that the process does not drag on
forever and ever and ever, sometimes as much as 10 and 15 years. This
provision alone is so important that it is more than sufficient
justification for supporting this conference report today.
The conference report also includes a provision dealing with
mandatory victim restitution and provides for specified assistance to
victims of terrorism, and that is so terribly, terribly important. For
too long in this country we have paid too little attention to the
victims of crime while we have focused huge resources to protect the
rights of the accused criminal.
Mr. Speaker, there is also a section which prohibits providing
material support to, or raising funds for, foreign organizations
designated as terrorist organizations.
This and the other provisions in this conference report designed to
limit terrorism will never be a complete solution to the problem, but
this conference agreement is a huge step in the right direction of
terrorism prevention.
I would particularly like to commend the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for all of
their hard work in finally getting this bill here to the floor, along
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], who is sitting here.
Without their help, this legislation certainly would not be here today.
This has been an especially tough assignment in a long list of tough
assignments for the Committee on the Judiciary.
In addition, sitting over to my right, I would like to recommend the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] for his extra efforts in shaping this
final product. Without his efforts we never would have been here today
either. The conference agreement before the House today includes many
of the provisions sought by the gentleman from Georgia, and we take off
our hat to him.
Mr. Speaker, adoption of this rule is necessary to allow the House to
proceed to the consideration of the conference report. I would ask for
a ``yes'' vote on the rule, and on the conference report and on the
previous question, as well.
I do not know where this previous question fight has come from. This
was not discussed in the Committee on Rules prior to today. Certainly
the conference has already been abandoned because the Senate has
already passed the bill. We should stop fooling around
[[Page H3601]]
with this and making political points. We ought to get over here, vote
for the previous question, vote for the rule, and then vote for this
vital piece of legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Frost] for yielding me the time, and this is on the rule. I am going to
have more to say on the bill later.
But one the rule I would urge that we vote down the previous
question, and that is because this bill has one glaring omission, and
that is the ability to do multipoint wiretaps.
The bill, if we ask law enforcement what was the No. 1 thing they
needed to fight terrorism, and I have talked to lots of them, they
would say it would be the multipoint wiretap. The multipoint wiretap
has no civil liberties problems. Let me explain to my colleagues what
it is: Still have to go to court to get the wiretap, and still have the
probable cause standard.
However, in the past we have tapped, when they got a tap, it is on
the person's phone number. So they say, ``I want to tap number 345-6789
because John Smith, there is probable cause to believe John Smith is
doing illegal things, and we want to find him.''
But these days technology has allowed criminals and terrorists to get
ahead of that. Why? They get cellular phones, and they change their
number every third day. It takes law enforcement time to find that new
number, and then under present law they would have to go to court and
get a new court order.
Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense, and in the original bill that was
introduced by myself and the subsequent bill introduced by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the multipoint wiretap provision
was put in. However, it was taken out because of the objection of some.
I do not know what the objection is, frankly. Part it of may have been
misnomered. It was first called roving wiretap, and roving implied it
would go to any person. So now the name has been changed to multipoint
wiretap.
It is still opposed by the far right and by some in the civil
liberties community on the far left. But, my colleagues, they are
simply wrong.
Mr. Speaker, when we discussed it in conference, the Senator from
Utah asked the gentleman from Georgia and others what is a reason to be
against these taps, and none was given. The only explanation given by
my good friend from Florida was, well, there is a lot of
misinformation, and Mr. Hyde, Mr. Hatch, who have worked laboriously on
this bill, and I salute them and I will in my later remarks, and the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, all agree we should have that in
a later bill and bring it to the floor.
Well, my colleagues, we should do it now. This bill is not strong
enough.
I will vote for the bill. It is better than what we have now, and
progress has been made since the Barr amendment stripped out the heart
of the bill, and the gentleman from Georgia has changed his mind and
supported some of the provisions that were stripped out in the House
previously.
So, in my judgment. The bill is OK, but it could be a lot better. It
is only half a full glass. And by voting down the previous question,
and then voting on the concurrent resolution offered by the gentleman
from Texas, we could restore the provision that law enforcement
considers first and foremost what has been needed to fight the fight
against terrorism.
So I would ask my colleagues to put down partisanship, to put down
fear of some extreme groups who by misinformation and fear have
mischaracterized this provision. Let us pass it now. We do not know
what is going to happen in this Congress. I would say the odds are that
we will not pass a multipoint wiretap later on in the year, despite the
intentions of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to get it.
So to toughen the bill up, to give law enforcement what they need
without violating any civil liberties, we should vote down the previous
question, add the multipoint wiretap provision, and then we could say
we have passed a good bill.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr] who was very instrumental in the drafting of this
legislation.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia has not changed his mind on
anything. The provisions that we have added back into this bill during
the conference proceedings are different from those that were in the
bill earlier and that were removed in the Barr amendment. The gentleman
from New York may not be aware of that, but they are different. They
are protective of civil liberties. They grant our law enforcement
community the very specific narrowly crafted tools that it needs in
certain key areas. But nothing has changed in terms of my regard for
civil liberties, my regard for taking a very close look at those
provisions and allowing those only insofar as I am able to be enacted
into law that are absolutely essential.
The gentleman goes on and on about multipoint or roving wiretaps. The
American people and Members of this body certainly are aware of the
vast power that our Government currently has with which to wiretap.
There indeed are provisions in current law in Title 18 of the United
States Code that already provide for multipoint wiretap. They may not
be the provisions that are the easiest to implement, but they are
there, and they are used.
There may very well be civil liberties problems with the proposal of
the other side. It is a vast expansion of current authority, and I do
not feel that it would be at all appropriate to consider it
precipitously as we would be doing today. Rather, Mr. Speaker, there is
a provision in section 810 of this conference report, as presented to
the House today, that provides for a comprehensive study by the
administration, by the Attorney General, on the entire issue of
wiretaps. That study would have to be completed in 90 days.
I and my colleagues who believe in effective but accountable law
enforcement believe that that is the appropriate way to go so that we
can study this with the deliberation that it requires, look at current
law, which is vast in the area of wiretap authority for our Government,
be very mindful of civil liberties and craft, if crafting new
legislation is necessary, the most limited, not the most expansive, way
of achieving that result.
{time} 1230
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a
classic case of, once again, the Republican Congress moving in a way
which links two completely separate issues, and therefore mixes up and
puts a number of Members of Congress that are very interested in
establishing tough new standards on antiterrorism law, it forces us to
vote against the bill because of the irreparable damage this does to
our constitutional rights under habeas corpus.
Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the death penalty in this
country, but I also believe very strongly, absolutely as strongly, that
we ought to give people the absolute right to appeal their decisions
under the constitutional guarantees of this land, to make certain that
we do not make mistakes once which impose the death penalty.
Why is it necessary, why is it necessary to link the death penalty
and the constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus to a terrorism bill?
This is just a political deal. It is a political deal to get votes on
the right, to get them to link up and vote for a bill that should stand
on its own hind legs. It should stand on its own forelegs.
But what we have is, instead, a glomming together of separate ideas
that are necessary to patch together the votes because of the craziness
that has invaded this body. Please, can we not recognize that there are
severe threats, as we have seen in Oklahoma, as we have seen in New
York, as we have seen in provisions which are included in this bill,
which I was able to get passed in conjunction with the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], to make certain that we protect against Government-
sponsored labs from providing all sorts of terrorist agents, such as
serin and other pathogens that we have seen, the Ebola virus and the
like, that have been made too readily available to anyone who writes in
to a Government lab
[[Page H3602]]
and claims that they need these terrible pathogens that can be used for
all sorts of destruction.
Those are good provisions, those are antiterrorism provisions. Habeas
corpus has nothing to do with an antiterrorism bill. It forces too many
of us to finally vote ``no'' on this bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, in listening to the remarks of the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], now I am
confused. I remember they used to criticize a former President by
ridicule, saying he could not walk and chew gum at the same time. It
would seem to me that handling two ideas is not that difficult: habeas
and antiterrorism, even if what he said is true, that they were not
related; however, they are.
If someone gets convicted of bombing a building and killing people,
people who are the victims of that, and survivors, would like to be
sure that the appeals cannot go on and on and on, as they do now. So
bringing to closure and bringing the sentence that is imposed into
reality does have something to do with bombing buildings, and that has
something to do with terrorism.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not quibble with the
fact that we can impose tougher sentencing on people involved in
terrorist activities. That is, obviously, a terrorism issue. But I
would say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], there is no one in
this Congress who has stood up more eloquently for this Constitution in
so many cases, since I have been here over the course of the last
decade, than he.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. At times, when it cuts against even
issues that the gentleman believes in, I have seen him stand up on the
House floor to stand up for the Constitution of this country. What we
have here is an undoing of the Federal Government's rights to intervene
in the State courts. That is what is wrong with this bill.
The gentleman can make the argument that this is necessary because he
is so angry at these terrorists and the kinds of activities that they
are involved with, but that does not excuse us from intervening in a
way that the Constitution has always protected this country. If we are
going to do it, we ought to do it on its own two legs, not by linking
it to this terrorism bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's concern. It is a common
one. It has to do with the deference that Federal courts will give to
State court decisions. I believe that is what he is talking about. We
will discuss that at some length in our debate on the bill, but the
Federal judge always reviews the State court decision to see if it is
in conformity with established Supreme Court precedence, or if it has
been misapplied. So it is not a blank, total deference, but it is a
recognition that you cannot relitigate these issues endlessly.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the debate has centered on the most important
feature of this bill, in my judgment, and that is the habeas corpus
provisions. It took us a generation to convince the people on the left
that we ought to have a workable, reassurable, predictable death
penalty that would inexorably exact the punishment that was intended.
We worked fro 20 years in this Chamber to try to accomplish a death
penalty, because 80 percent of the American people wanted to see it
happen. Then when we see the World Trade Center tragedy and other
terrorism that has wreaked havoc across our land, then we reinstate the
notion that we need the death penalty to allow a jury to exercise that
ultimate option.
Now we have before us a habeas corpus procedure that forbade the
final solution to the death penalty problem; namely, the execution of
the killer. Here is a killer who viciously kills hundreds of people in
one act, who can sit in a cell and file paper after paper, habeas
corpus and other documents, to prevent the ultimate punishment that the
jury prescribed for him.
In this antiterrorism bill, there is a strong, strong chain of events
that lead from the kinds of acts that we abhor, like Oklahoma City,
like the World Trade Center and others too horrible to conceive, where
a jury is entitled to impose the death penalty. And we should not
shrink from the responsibility of making sure that their final judgment
is not set aside or weakened or laughed at by reason of the frivolous
appeals that have been filed time after time in the history of these
actions.
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I will support the conference
report. It is a good antiterrorism mechanism that allows for the death
penalty to be applied as a deterrent to future bombings like Oklahoma
City, and as a punishment for those who do commit those kinds of acts.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank my
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], from the Committee on
Rules, for being generous with his time, because I may not have time on
the debate of the bill itself to make some of the points that I would
like to make.
Mr. Speaker, I am as upset about the Trade Center bombing and the
Oklahoma City bombing as anybody in America. I do not want anybody to
be misunderstanding what I am saying. But we are about to perpetrate a
fraud on the American people, because this bill is not any longer about
terrorism, the bill is about matters that go well, well beyond
terrorism and we are, unfortunately, using these two terrorist acts as
the predicate for undoing some important constitutional protections.
I will not even spend my time talking about the death penalty
provisions in this bill. What I will spend my time talking about is the
importance of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus, which most people are
not going to understand, because a lot of people think habeas corpus is
about the death penalty. It is not. Only 1 percent or less of habeas
corpus petitions involve the death penalty at all. That is, less than
100 out of 10,000 habeas corpus petitions involve the death penalty.
Habeas corpus appeals have been brought by gun owners who feel that
they have been unjustly imprisoned for exercising their second
amendment rights. They have been brought by pro-life protesters, who
feel that they have been unjustly imprisoned by their first amendment
rights being suspended. They have been brought by people who have been
protesting on the pro-life side. They span the whole philosophical
gamut of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, this is a constitutional attack that we are engaged in.
First, petitioners are limited to one petition, 1 year of exhausting
their appeals. By imposing this limitation, important new evidence,
even new compelling evidence of one's innocence, can no longer be
offered in a court of law to prove one's innocence. Compelling new
evidence of one's innocence can no longer be offered, after that one
bite within 1 year.
We have seen the advances that our country has made in DNA, and DNA
evidence is now coming forward to reveal that people who have been in
jail for 10 years, 15 years, are being held unjustly, without
any contradiction, and we are willing to compromise the most basic
thing, innocence, for political expediency.
Habeas corpus is only in the Federal Constitution, yet this bill says
that the Federal courts must defer to State courts in the
interpretation. That is unprecedented. Never has it happened in this
country. Sandra Day O'Connor, not one of your liberal bastions, and you
can call me anything, but she is certainly not there, she said that the
Federal courts must presume the correctness of the State courts' legal
conclusions on habeas, or that State
[[Page H3603]]
courts' incorrect legal determination has ever been allowed to stand
because it was reasonable.
What is a reasonable, unreasonable, interpretation of the
Constitution? We have to defer only if the State court does something
out of the ordinary, or unreasonable. It is the Federal court's
prerogative and responsibility to determine our Federal constitutional
rights.
Mr. Speaker, even Justice Rehnquist recently said that ``Judicial
independence is one of the crown jewels of our system of government.''
Mr. Speaker, we cannot sacrifice our constitutional principles
because we are angry at people for bombing. The constitutional
principles that I am arguing for are for every single American, and the
minute we start compromising them to get terrorists, to get anyone, we
must compromise them for everyone.
Think about the number of cases in our judicial system that involve
terrorist acts. They are few. We get angry about them. But think, on
the other side, that our Constitution was written not to protect those
people, but to protect every American. We are sacrificing our own
individual liberties and our own constitutional rights for the
political expediency that goes with passage of this bill.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I support the rule and I will
support the conference report. I think there are a lot of positive
things that are in the conference report, including mandatory victims'
restitution, a bill that I have introduced in several Congresses and
hope will finally get a signature for that particular provision, habeas
corpus reform, which I have also supported, and particularly the FBI
counterterrorism center and funds available for that counterterrorism
center.
{time} 1245
I think that the conference committee overall did an excellent job in
crafting this legislation. I have to agree, however, with my good
friend from New York, Mr. Schumer, on one particular provision that was
left out of the conference report, and that is the multipoint wiretap
provision.
I can see no reason why that particular provision, which was
requested specifically by the FBI and by Director Freeh, would be left
out of the conference report. All of the safeguards that are currently
in the law regarding wiretaps would be contained in that provision.
Wiretaps are an important tool of law enforcement to try to
determine, before these kinds of tragedies exist and before they
happen, to be able to catch the particular individuals involved. That
is what law enforcement is all about.
Let us understand one thing here. The FBI and law enforcement is not
the enemy. The enemy is the terrorists and people who would take
advantage of our open system to further their political goals through
the use of violence.
Our best protection against that kind of violence is the ability of
law enforcement to ferret out beforehand those kinds of individuals,
and use lawful techniques to investigate those perpetrators or those
potential perpetrators. So let us give, hopefully, the benefit of the
doubt to our judicial system and to our law enforcement officials to
make those kinds of determinations.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who in the past have done this for a living
understand how important wiretap evidence is. I am sorry it was not
part of this conference report, but we ought to get to that later and I
would suggest we do so.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, today as we consider the antiterrorism bill, we do so in
the memory also of those who were brutally killed when Libryan
Government agents placed a bomb on Pan Am 103 on December 21, 1988. We
can never forget the horror of that day.
As we learned of the loss of Pan Am 103, each of us thought of the
great human tragedy that had struck the families of those who were
passengers on that plane. Those passengers were flying home for the
Christmas holidays, and each of us knew in our hearts how much their
families were suffering.
For those who lost their loved ones in this despicable act of state
terrorism, there can never be a moment's rest while those responsible
for the murder of their loved ones remain at large.
My good friend Victoria Cummock of Coral Gables, FL, is president of
a group called ``Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie.'' Her husband, John
Binning Cummock, was a victim of the Libyan terrorists that day.
Victoria and many others in her group have worked for many years with
diligence and dedication to encourage the Congress to enact effective
legislation against terrorism so that no other family will again
experience the tragedy that befell the families of Pan Am 103. Although
nothing can ever replace their loved ones and there is no word of
comfort that any of us could say to alleviate their loss, we can bring
the Libyan Government to justice by voting for this bill.
The bill creates a right for American citizens to sue in American
courts any government that sponsors state terrorism. I am sure that an
impartial jury, considering the nature of the Libyan act and its origin
in Libyan Government policy, will conclude that financial compensation
is indeed due to the families of the Pan Am 103 victims.
The administration, for reasons that no one has ever really
satisfactorily explained, opposed giving the families of the victims of
state-sponsored terrorism this right to compensation, but it has
changed its mind in recent weeks. I am glad that the White House has
agreed to sign this important bill into law.
The families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie have endorsed this bill. I urge
all of our colleagues in the House to support this legislation and send
it to the President for his signature.
We grieve for the loss of the Cummock family and indeed all of the
victims of the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie incident.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I regret the gentleman from North Carolina has
left the floor. I hope he can hear me, anyway. He said some rather
harsh things.
He said this bill is a fraud. Since I am the chief sponsor of the
bill, I guess I am trying to impose a fraud on America. Frankly, given
the hyperbolic tendencies of all of us, even that is a little bit much.
He said the bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Then he talked
about habeas corpus. I just wish he would read the bill, or at least
the same bill that I read.
This bill provides for an open designation process of what is a
foreign terrorist organization. It denies those terrorist organizations
the ability to raise money in this country. It provides authority to
the State Department to deny entrance visas to members of those
designated foreign terrorist organizations. It provides a fair and even
process to deport alien terrorists. It denies assistance to foreign
countries that do not cooperate with us in our antiterrorism efforts.
It provides that foreign air carriers that travel to and from the
United States abide by the same safety measures that American air
carriers must follow; mandatory victim restitution, not discretionary;
criminal alien deportation improvements; granting Federal courts
jurisdiction to hear civil suits against state-sponsored terrorism;
mandatory minimum penalties for explosive crimes; protection of all
current and former Federal employees who are attacked on account of
their employment.
That has nothing to do with terrorism? I find that incredible.
As far as the deference that a Federal judge must give in a habeas
proceeding
[[Page H3604]]
to a State court decision, I simply say the State judge went to the
same law school, studied the same law and passed the same bar exam that
the Federal judge did. The only difference is the Federal judge was
better politically connected and became a Federal judge.
But I would suggest to my colleague when the judge raises his hand,
State court or Federal court, they swear to defend the U.S.
Constitution, and it is wrong, it is unfair to assume, ipso facto, that
a State judge is going to be less sensitive to the law, less scholarly
in his or her decision than a Federal judge. The Federal judge still
has to look at the work product of the State court to decide if they
got it right.
Somehow, somewhere we are going to end the charade of endless habeas
proceedings, and this bill is going to do it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately vote for the conference report.
However, I again urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the
rule.
If the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment
to the rule which would provide that the House will have adopted a
concurrent resolution directing the Clerk to correct the enrollment of
this conference report by adding language granting law enforcement
agencies new wiretap authority.
Mr. Speaker, the text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Section . Upon the adoption of this resolution, the House
shall be considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution
directing the Clerk of the House to correct the enrollment of
S. 735 and consisting of the text contained in the next
section of this resolution.
Section . Resolved by the House of Representatives (The
Senate concurring), that in the enrollment of the bill (S.
735) the Terrorism Prevention Act, the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall make the following corrections:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. . EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR MULTI-POINT WIRETAPS.
Section 2518(11) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(11) The requirements of subsections (1)(b)(ii) and
(3)(d) of this section relating to the specifications of
facilities from which or the place where the communication is
to be intercepted do not apply if in the case of an
application with respect to the interception of wire, oral or
electronic communications--
``(a) the application is by a federal investigative or law
enforcement officer, and is approved by the Attorney General,
the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General,
or an Assistant Attorney General (or acting in any such
capacity);
``(b) the application contains full and complete statements
as to why such specifications is not practical and identifies
the person committing the offense and whose communications
are to be intercepted; and
``(c) the judge finds that such specification is not
practical.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say in closing that the conferees have worked very hard to
produce an agreement that I believe assigns the Federal Government a
reasonable and legitimate role in the fight against terrorism. This
legislation has not been developed hastily. In fact, it has been nearly
a yearlong process to craft a bill that provides law enforcement with
the tools they need to effectively deter and punish terrorism, but in a
way that balances public safety and security with individual rights and
liberties.
It is vitally important that would-be terrorists understand our firm
commitment to protecting our citizens from the threat of terrorist
acts, especially here in these great United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274,
nays 148, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
YEAS--274
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--148
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
[[Page H3605]]
Serrano
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wilson
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--10
Bartlett
Dingell
Fields (TX)
Gibbons
Hayes
Jackson-Lee (TX)
McIntosh
Skaggs
Souder
Tanner
{time} 1314
Mr. STUPAK, Mr. GEPHARDT, and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Messrs. OBEY, WAMP,
PETERSON of Minnesota, MOLLOHAN, and WISE changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 289,
noes 125, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
AYES--289
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--125
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weller
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--18
Crane
Cubin
DeFazio
Dingell
Fields (TX)
Forbes
Greenwood
Hayes
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Largent
McIntosh
Millender-McDonald
Owens
Reed
Salmon
Tanner
Thompson
{time} 1324
Mr. LUTHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________