[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3605-H3618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 735, ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY 
                              ACT OF 1996

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 735), to prevent and 
punish acts of terrorism, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXVIII, the conference 
report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
April 15, 1996, at page H3305.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].


                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report on S. 735.

[[Page H3606]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, 132 years ago, in a small cemetery in 
Pennsylvania, one of America's great presidents asked a very haunting 
question, whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the 
proposition that all men are created equal could long endure. Our 
answer to that question depends on how we legislate to protect a free 
people from those evil forces who seek our destruction through violence 
and terrorism.
  The bill, the conference report that we have before us today, does 
that in exemplary fashion. It maintains the delicate balance between 
liberty and order, between our precious freedoms and defending this 
country, something we have sworn to do when we took our oath of office 
to defend the Constitution and the country behind it.

                              {time}  1330

  Now, this bill has had a stormy odyssey, and I think it is worthwhile 
to recapitulate a little bit. First of all, what has been added to the 
bill as it passed the House? Removal of alien terrorists. These 
provisions allow for the removal of alien terrorists fairly and with 
due process but also with protections adequate to safeguard sources and 
methods of classified information.
  Under the conference report, the alien will be given a declassified 
summary of the classified information, and this summary must be 
sufficient to enable the alien to prepare a defense. If the district 
court judge presiding over the hearing determines that it is not 
adequate to prepare a defense, the hearing terminates and the alien 
goes free. But we must protect sources, we must protect methods. We 
must balance that with the need for a fair hearing.
  So, we think this strikes the appropriate balance. There will be no 
secret proceedings or anything like that. Designation of foreign 
terrorist organizations, we got that back in the bill. It was taken out 
on the floor earlier. But we have provided that the Secretary of State, 
in cooperation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, can designate terrorist organizations.
  We are not talking about countries now. That is under another law. 
They can designate terrorist organizations. They must notify Congress 
within 7 days. We have a chance to review that, and we can set it aside 
if we wish. With that authority, the Secretary of the Treasury can 
freeze assets in this country that belong to terrorist organizations.
  Also back in the bill is the prohibition against terrorist 
fundraising. Raising money in this country is the lifeblood of many 
organizations, not excluding terrorists, and we put a stop to that with 
this bill.
  We also, under this bill, we have a procedure for excluding alien 
terrorists. We authorize the State Department's embassy officials 
overseas to deny entrance visas to members and representatives of those 
same designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Washington Post 
had an editorial this morning talking about keeping out alien 
terrorists that we might want to come in so we can negotiate with them.
  I suggest that the law has permitted that to happen, not this law but 
other laws. Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, people have come into this 
country under the law. And so this is not a hard and fast blanket 
exclusion. Prohibitions on foreign assistance, countries that do not 
cooperate with us in our antiterrorist acts will not get foreign 
assistance.
  On foreign air carrier safety, the conference report requires foreign 
air carriers that come into our country and leave our country provide 
the same security and safety measures, the identical ones that American 
air carriers must follow under regulations promulgated by the FAA. 
Those are important antiterrorist laws that will help us protect 
ourselves in the future, and anyone who says that there are not serious 
antiterrorist measures in this bill as not read it.
  Now, habeas corpus reform, that is the Holy Grail. We have pursued 
that for 14 years, in my memory. The absurdity, the obscenity of 17 
years from the time a person has been sentenced till that sentence is 
carried out through endless appeals, up and down the State court 
system, and up and down the Federal court system, makes a mockery of 
the law. It also imposes a cruel punishment on the victims, the 
survivors' families, and we seek to put an end to that.
  We are not shredding the Constitution. We are shaping a process to 
keep it within the ambit of the Constitution, but to bring justice to 
the American people. That is what we have done with habeas corpus 
reform, and I simply direct attention to quotations from President Bill 
Clinton, who has said in death penalty cases, it normally takes 8 years 
to exhaust the appeals. It is ridiculous, 8 years is ridiculous; 15 and 
17 years is even more so. So heed the words of our President on this 
subject.

  Now, we have a 1-year statute of limitations in habeas. Nothing wrong 
with that.
  I would like to read. I have left the letter up there. Diane Leonard, 
who is the wife of a Secret Service agent who was killed in Oklahoma 
City, sent this letter, which I just received today:

       Dear Congressman Hyde, The antiterrorism bill has reached 
     this far and represents a victory for the vast majority of 
     Americans over extremists of the left and right. A victory 
     over extremists whose volume sometimes overwhelms the quieter 
     voice that differentiates between right and wrong. The people 
     who killed my husband, his coworkers and other law-abiding 
     Americans did not give a damn whether they were killing 
     Republicans or Democrats. I am asking that you call on your 
     colleagues to have a similar blindness to party to do one 
     thing, only one thing: Give us justice.
       Diane Leonard, widow of Donald Leonard, U.S. Secret Service 
     victim, Oklahoma bombing.

  Mandatory victim restitution, right now it is discretionary. Under 
this bill, it is mandatory. Think of the victims and think of the 
victims first. Criminal alien deportation improvements, allowing for 
district court judges to order the deportation of aliens convicted of 
Federal crimes, not just because they are aliens. They are in the 
slammer for Federal crimes. But at the end of their term, they can get 
deported with expedition rather than go through another and another and 
another hearing.
  We also have maintained a taggant study. We put taggants in plastic 
which is used for bombs. But as for other substances, it is a fact, and 
this is not the NRA talking. It is a fact that we are not sure how safe 
and how efficacious, how efficient and how cost effective they are in 
things like fertilizer. We are going to have a study, and that study is 
going to be a scientific one, an objective one. Following that study, 
regulations may be promulgated and Congress will have a chance to look 
at them, 9 months of review to determine whether we should put taggants 
in other substances.
  I think it is sensible, a mainstream solution.
  On expedited asylum procedures, the conference report does not add 
any wiretap authorities that were not in the bill when it left the 
House. It does not give law enforcement any additional access to 
consumer credit reports or common carrier records. It does not give the 
military any increased role in civilian law enforcement.
  Now, these are here, some things I would love to have in the bill. I 
would love to have the multipoint wiretapping authority. I would love 
to use the technology and expertise of the military when chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons are used in public, but that is not in 
the bill. We did not have the votes, and so we put that aside in the 
interest of getting a good bill.
  The survivors want the habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is tied up with 
terrorism because when a terrorist is convicted of mass killings, we 
want to make sure that terrorist ultimately and reasonably has the 
sentence imposed on him or her. It is not incommensurate with the 
Constitution, it follows the Constitution and due process.
  So let us answer Lincoln's haunting question yes, a country conceived 
in liberty can long endure.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

[[Page H3607]]

                              section 806

  By enacting section 806, Congress intends that the Commission examine 
closely the priorities and structure of Federal law enforcement as we 
head into the 21st century. The large proliferation of Federal agencies 
with law enforcement authorities, overlapping jurisdiction, 
nonstandardized policies and procedures among the various agencies, and 
separate training and administrative functions require examination to 
determine if Federal law enforcement effectiveness can be increased in 
an era of fiscal austerity.
  There are clear distinctions in procedures, planning, and 
capabilities of the various law enforcement agencies. This is 
especially so when, as has increasingly become the case, Federal and 
local officials are working jointly on investigations and operations. 
Congress intends the Commission to examine issues of coordination to 
ensure effective utilization of scarce resources and to ensure proper 
Federal support for State and local law enforcement.
  Accountability for law enforcement operations has increasingly become 
an issue before Congress. Congress specifically intends that the 
Commission examine who within the executive branch should ultimately be 
responsible, short of the President, for interagency coordination, 
uniform standards, ethical standards and the other issues common to all 
Federal law enforcement agencies. Congress believes the current 
proliferation of agencies, the confusion and dangers that result 
therefrom and the lack of clear accountability and responsibility has 
lead to an unhealthy level of competition fostering operations and 
inefficiencies that are not in the best interests of public safety.

  Congress does not intend by the establishment of this Commission to 
create an oversight function separate from that already performed by 
Congress. Congress historically has always been very mindful of the 
dangers inherent in examining specific cases, of protecting raw 
investigative information and from ensuring that the political process 
does not impede or intimidate those line investigators and prosecutors 
charged with enforcing the law. The managers realize that having an 
outside Commission examining cases and the details of investigations 
could have a chilling effect on those who must protect our public 
safety.
  Congress believes that to ensure the protection of the privacy and 
civil rights of people investigated but not charged, the Commission 
must not examine specific investigations or investigative or 
prosecutive strategies. Likewise, to ensure that investigations remain 
unimpeded and investigators and prosecutors remain free of the 
potential for influence or intimidation, the Commission must avoid 
examining specific cases, calling as witnesses line personnel or 
seeking information the disclosure of which would have dire 
consequences, for example, informant identities, confidential 
witnesses, sensitive techniques, et cetera. Even in closed cases, 
examination of discretionary investigative and prosecutorial decisions 
risk not only the appearance of political influence and chilling 
aggressive prosecution, it also threatens the due process rights of 
suspects and defendants. The Commission is not established to put 
specific cases under the microscope. To the contrary, it is intended to 
focus on macro issues that go to effectiveness, coordination, 
efficiency and public safety.
  Congress does not intend the Commission to examine issues or cases 
involving national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are here to discuss this bill. We have 
received the quotations from President Clinton and former Presidents, 
but let us look at what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is 
talking about.
  He is proud of the fact that we implement the convention on marketing 
plastic explosives that was noncontroversial. Restrictions on 
biological and chemical weapons, hooray, that was uncontroversial. We 
got in the bill mandatory victim restitution. Do you remember anybody 
ever quarreling with that? Not hardly.
  Mr. Speaker, now we come to all of the Barr provisions that were 
killed out of this bill by 246 votes, a majority. Remember that? That 
was not such a great day on the floor, because the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought we should not strengthen the criminal alien 
deportation procedure, so he kicked it out and it won. The gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought that we should not expedite the 
deportation of terrorists, and it won and we kicked it out. The 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] thought that there should not be a 
ban on fundraising by terrorist groups, and he won and we kicked it 
out. Now in the conference we got pieces of it back in.
  I am very happy that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
wishes that we had wiretap authority for terrorists, not for stealing 
cars, not for hijacking, not for simple felony crimes, but terrorism, 
this one thing that we are dealing with so completely here this 
afternoon. But we do not want wiretap authority extended. Oh, yes, we 
got it already, but we do not have enough and it is not directed at 
terrorists, of all people.
  What about identifying explosives, which could have stopped at least 
one bombing I know about? Well, we do not want to include powder and 
things that are used in great quantity around the country. We will 
exclude that. We will put in taggants, but we will leave out the two 
kinds of powder that are used most. What about cop killer bullets? Oh, 
do not bring that up. We will deal with that separately. Let us study 
the armor-piercing ability of the jackets that policemen wear. Do not 
worry about the bullet.
  Why not make it easier to sue foreign governments? Well, we do not 
want to get into that. That is foreign policy. What about cooperation 
with the Federal law and the U.S. military? Oh, no, let us not do that. 
So what we have is a bill that has taken out the guts of everything 
that should have been in it, and everything that could have been agreed 
on 1 year ago is in it and we are real proud of that.

  This is a gutless bill, and how dare those tough crime fighters 
suggest that this is going to stop something? Oh, yeah, and then we 
throw in habeas so that a suicide bomber is going to read the new 
habeas law and he will get executed quicker. I say to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], he is willing to blow himself up. He does not 
need your law to help him get executed.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that at the World Trade 
Center there were no suicide bombers? Is the gentleman aware that at 
Oklahoma City there were no suicide bombers?
  Mr. CONYERS. Then that makes it OK then to bring in habeas?
  Mr. HYDE. No. That is an easy question to answer. Just yes or no.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, yes.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Barr], the distinguished gentleman who played a key role in the shaping 
of this bill.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
for yielding time to me.
  The gentleman from Illinois, the chairman, has done tremendous 
service to the people of America in his work on this piece of 
legislation, this historic piece of legislation, and I am proud to have 
been associated with him and with this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today the American people have much to be proud of, much 
to be optimistic about for the future credibility, integrity and 
ability of our law enforcement system to seek out, prosecute, prevent, 
and sentence, and carry out sentences effectively, efficiently, and 
within the bounds of our Constitution in a reasonable period of time.
  When I met earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, with the number of 
individuals who represented the families of victims in Oklahoma and 
Lockerbie, they did not come to us in the Congress and say the 
Government needs more wiretap power, give them whatever they need. They 
did not come to us, Mr. Speaker, and say the Government needs in order 
to bring justice to us, more power to gain access to personal records 
without a court order, so give them whatever they need or whatever

[[Page H3608]]

they want. They did not come to us, Mr. Speaker, and say despite the 
fact that for over a hundred years we have held a very bright and fine 
and important line between the functions of our military and protecting 
our borders and domestic law enforcement, and we need to blur that 
line, and we need to have the military involved in domestic law 
enforcement, so give them whatever they want.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the families of those victims, of those people who 
have lost loved ones, colleagues and friends to acts of terrorism, came 
to us and said give us justice, give us habeas and death penalty reform 
because the very credibility, all of the confidence that we want to 
have in our criminal justice system, is being eroded by the failure to 
deliver that to the American people.
  And that is what this bill is about, and I also say, Mr. Speaker, 
that to those warped minds who might today or tomorrow or 1 year from 
now or 10 years from now contemplate, irrationally as it may be, an act 
of terrorism against one of our citizens, against one of our Federal 
employees, against one of the greatest institutions of this Federal 
Government, let them think longer and harder about it, as I believe 
they will, knowing that we have passed this legislation, because it 
will tell them in no uncertain terms, and they do listen to this; this 
thought process goes on in their mind. They will know that no longer 
will they be able to, within our borders or come into our country, and 
kill our citizens, and destroy our government institutions and know 
that they will be able to spend the next 25 years laughing at us, 
thumbing their nose at the families of victims, because they will know 
because of the work of the gentleman from Illinois and our colleagues 
on both sides, 91 strong in the Senate, has stood up this day and said 
no more, never again, enough is enough.
  That is the importance of this legislation, and there is no clearer 
link, no stronger link, Mr. Speaker, between effective antiterrorism 
legislation and deterring criminal acts of violence in this country 
than habeas and death penalty reform. The American people are demanding 
it. Future generations who will have to face the constant problem of 
terrorism demand it. They know that it will work. They know we must 
have it.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, with the important civil 
liberties guarantees enshrined in it, is so very important, and that is 
why I am proud to stand here today as a Representative of the American 
people, shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Hyde, with Senator Hatch in the 
other body, and say, yes, we have heard the cries of the American 
people, we have heard the needs of law enforcement, the National 
District Attorneys Association, attorneys general all across this 
country, police chiefs, and sheriffs all across this country that say, 
contrary to what the gentleman from New York keeps saying, oh, we want 
more wiretap authority. They have come to us, in writing and in person, 
on the phone and over the fax machines of this country, and said we 
need habeas reform. That is the one thing, that most important element, 
the crown jewel here, that we must have. Let us today give it to the 
American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the notion that the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr], as he was saying, represented the 
interests of law enforcement here in this bill, that they were 
adequately represented when it was his amendment and his work that has 
allowed for a study of cop killer bullets to me is utter hypocrisy. 
That is all.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Letter to Chairman Orrin Hatch, who has just distinguished us with 
his presence on the floor, from one of the surviving victims of the 
Oklahoma City bombing:

  ``I am sorry I missed you,''the writer says to the gentleman from 
Utah [Senator Hatch], when I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago. 
As the father of someone murdered by the Oklahoma City bomb, I write to 
urge you to reconsider the habeas corpus package in the bills you are 
being called into conference on.
  ``It utterly galls us as a family so devoted to my daughter that we 
and our loss should be used as a political football for politicians 
eager to posture themselves as tough on crime in order to reap some 
political advantage and to do the bidding of already powerful agencies 
who have demonstrated their inability to responsibly exercise enormous 
powers that they already possess. The habeas reform provisions in 
particular are not known or understood by the families who have used 
them to lobby on behalf of the bill. One family member even told me 
recently that she understood habeas corpus to be an antiterrorism 
investigation tool. Sincerely, Mr. Bud Welch.''
  Now I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], yes or no, is not 
it true that only 1 percent of the habeas cases involve the death 
penalty.
  The answer the gentleman knows and I know.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. I do not know.
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman does not know. Ah, the chairman is not 
sure, or he is not even not sure. He just does not know.
  Mr. HYDE. That is right.
  Mr. CONYERS. I will help the gentleman along the way.
  Now I will go to a quote of the gentleman's, and I am not picking on 
the gentleman. He is just my chairman on the wrong side of an important 
bill.
  When the issue came up during the hearings the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] said: ``I don't really see the wisdom of revisiting 
the whole habeas argument again in this committee on this bill.''
  Now it is the keystone of the antiterrorist legislation.
  I know the gentleman does not remember that either.
  Mr. HYDE. As you get older.
  Mr. CONYERS. I know, I know, I know.
  Check the committee hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have several remarks I would like to make. 
One is, I have enjoyed being a conferee on this particular bill, moving 
matters of substance. Also, I think we have to be very careful here 
when we are talking about family victims, of acts of terror or acts of 
violence, whether it is the ranking member that has his particular 
letter that gives, espouses one position, or I have a letter also from 
victims who espouse another position.
  Matters of statecraft have to be based on the intellect and not 
giving to the emotions of the moment, and that is what is important 
here.
  So let me say another comment I would like to make is that with 
regard to the acts of terrorists, especially international terror, the 
world and the dynamics of the world in which we live in have 
drastically changed. These international organizations have changed the 
lethality and increased the lethality of their actions. They used to 
rely upon their carjackings, and now what they have done are these 
bombings that are in public places, that are cowardly acts of terror 
that actually move the emotions of people because their actions are so 
outrageous.
  So what we must do in order to combat those outrageous forms of 
terror is, in fact, give law enforcement the necessary tools.
  Now, what is so difficult here is, in a free society, how we balance 
the protection of individual civil liberties with that of promoting 
public safety, and in this bill I believe that, in fact, has been 
achieved. It is not as strong as what some would like, perhaps the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], for example, but the bill is 
that balance that I just discussed.
  The bill also addresses, though,the need to insure the United States 
does not become the haven for international terrorists. Well, this 
legislation, members of terrorist organizations can be denied entry 
into the United States; that is extremely important. An alien terrorist 
discovered in the United States can be deported expeditiously. Our 
silent proceedings will not be perverted to let international 
terrorists

[[Page H3609]]

slip into our country, as happened with the mastermind of the World 
Trade Center bombing. Known terrorists organizations cannot take 
advantage of the generosity of American citizens to bankroll their 
heinous activities.
  This bill includes mandatory victim restitution in Federal cases.
  Finally, the victims of crimes are going to be seen not by Federal 
courts as deserving of compensation. Not only will the criminal have to 
pay a debt to society, the criminal will also have to make amends to 
the victim.
  Finally, the essence described as that crown jewel of this bill is 
the reform of habeas corpus for an effective death penalty. The bill 
sets time limits on the application and considerations of habeas writs; 
I think that is extremely important. No longer will petition after 
petition be filed with the courts, delaying endlessly the carrying out 
of sentences handed down by judges or juries.
  We have a paradox in our society whereby someone serves on death row 
for life. If, in fact, we are going to have a strong deterrence, 
retribution so that the victim can actually feel as though they have 
been vindicated, we need an effective death penalty. This bill will 
give it for America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], one of the hardest working members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I hate 
terrorists. They are the scum of the Earth. There is nothing lower than 
a terrorist. They are worse even then people who shoot folks in the 
back. And if this bill were limited to terrorists, emotionally I would 
be doing exactly what my colleagues are proposing to do here. But this 
bill is not limited to terrorists; it goes well beyond terrorists to 
common ordinary citizens.
  I read recently with horror a story of parents who, because their 
child got involved in something they did not like, they locked the 
child in the room for days at a time. And I got outraged by it. I think 
a number of us read that story and got outraged. This goes beyond that 
because what we are doing is locking other children, who had nothing to 
do with what we are here to talk about, in our constitutional closet 
with unconstitutional means today, and we are doing it in the name of 
combating terrorism when we know full well that there is a significant 
dislike between the two things.
  Only 100 out of 10,000 habeas corpus issues come from death penalty 
cases. Even less come from terrorist cases. Yet this bill is not 
limited either to death penalty cases or to terrorist cases. It is 
depriving every single American, every single child, every single one 
of us, of our constitutional protections of habeas corpus.

                              {time}  1400

  The chairman asked the question that Abraham Lincoln asked: Can a 
country conceived in liberty long endure? The ones that do not endure, 
Mr. Speaker, are the ones who concoct secret courts and deny their 
citizens the right to confront their accusers, and deny their citizens 
the right to contest unjust imprisonments, even in the face of 
compelling evidence of innocence. That is what this bill does. We ought 
to be ashamed of ourselves today for the American people.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the second-
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking minority 
member for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill. I voted for it in 
committee. I believe we ought to be strengthening our defenses against 
terrorism. But I do not believe we ought to be doing it in a fashion 
that misleads people.
  This bill, unfortunately, is excessively harsh where it ought not to 
be, and much too weak where we need toughness. Essentially what has 
survived in the assault of the Hamas wing of the Republican Party on 
this bill is virtually all of the added tools for law enforcement 
within the United States by which they could detect and prevent this 
kind of activity, those have gone out. We are very tough on foreigners. 
Once we catch you, we are going to be even tougher than we used to be.
  By the way, as to habeas corpus and the threat to our safety that is 
presented, remember, by definition, you are not eligible for habeas 
corpus unless you are locked up. We are not talking, when we talk about 
habeas corpus, about anybody walking around. We are talking about 
people who are locked up and who are a danger, presumably, to other 
prisoners, but certainly not to general society. But here is what was 
knocked out of this bill by the Hamas wing of the Republican Party, and 
their price apparently for letting the bill come back was to keep this 
out.
  Mr. HYDE. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about the Hamas wing of 
the Republican Party. I think that is a little extravagant. Does the 
gentleman want to withdraw that?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I would modify 
that to the wing that expressed they trusted Hamas more than the 
American Government.
  Mr. HYDE. It was not a wing, I would tell the gentleman. Wing implies 
more than one.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the 
gentleman was the one who said this on the floor, and he said it in a 
context that said it was representative of more than just one person. 
The gentleman from Illinois, in explaining why an amendment passed to 
weaken this bill, suggested that this was a person who was 
representative of a broader spectrum.
  Here is what they did. Here is what remains. As a result of the 
changes that were made when the bill left committee and came here, if 
there is an attack of a terrorist nature involving a major explosion 
anywhere in the world, and the U.S. military has the expertise to help 
analyze the cause, not arrest anybody, not prosecute anybody, not 
pursue anybody, but if we need the expertise of the U.S. military in 
analyzing the cause of a terrorist explosion, that expertise can be 
tendered to any government in the world except one.
  What is the one government in the world that is considered ineligible 
to benefit from the law enforcement expertise of the U.S. military? The 
American Government. The American Government, as a result of the 
appeasement of the right wing of the Republican Party, they are in 
control, and the U.S. Attorney General cannot get that expertise.
  Similarly, the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies get no 
significant expanded powers for detection. We retard, here, the ability 
to use taggants. It is not as bad as it was, but it is still 
substantially weakened. As a result of the need to pacify the right 
wing of the Republican Party, this bill has been substantially weakened 
where it ought to be tougher, and law enforcement simply does not have 
the authority it ought to have to be able to protect us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted now to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with a fair degree of hesitation that I rise in 
opposition to this bill, not that I am not fully committed in my 
opposition to this bill, but because of my deep and abiding respect for 
the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  However, Mr. Speaker, this bill I feel does not just affect habeas 
corpus procedures for death row inmates, but it actually affects all of 
our rights to protections under the Constitution, that which habeas 
corpus has afforded. The rights to speak and assemble freely, to be 
ensured of due process of law, and to be protected against false 
imprisonment belong to all Americans. We cannot allow ourselves to be 
frightened into giving up these freedoms.
  As Thomas Payne said in 1795, and true as ever today, he says: ``He 
that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from 
oppression.'' This, Mr. Speaker, is a line-on-line runout by the 
Congressional Research Service of all the Federal antiterrorist 
criminal laws. I asked for CRS to run this out. Mr. Speaker, this is 17 
pages long. We have enough laws

[[Page H3610]]

on the books already. The problem is that we are not enforcing the laws 
we have. This law abridges some of our very precious freedoms.
  Right now we have at least 353 Federal entities who already have 
police powers to enforce these kinds of laws. Mr. Speaker, it was 
Edmond Burke who said: ``Seldom are men disposed to give up their 
liberties unless under some pretext of necessity.'' The Oklahoma City 
bombing was a tragedy that we never want to see repeated, but this bill 
will not add to our protections against that kind of horrendous 
terrorism.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] who refused to sign the 
conference report.
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report on the antiterrorism bill. Because the issues addressed in this 
legislation have been a major focus for me throughout the entirety of 
my career in Congress, I want to lay out very clearly the reasons why I 
will vote against the conference report, despite my strong support for 
many of its provisions.
  I emphatically do think the case has been made that Federal law 
enforcement agencies must be granted expanded means to attack the 
scourge of terrorism, both international and domestic.
  I believe that our freedoms, as well as those enjoyed by the citizens 
of other democratic nations, cannot survive if we do not create new 
tools to apprehend and punish those who engage in domestic and 
international terrorism. Our ultimate objective must be, of course, to 
prevent such crimes from being committed in the first place.
  I want to acknowledge the fact that certain antiterrorism measures 
which I strongly support but which were ignominiously stripped from the 
House bill by the Barr amendment have now been restored in the 
conference report. It bears noting that valiant efforts were required 
to restore these provisions, for which I salute my colleagues on the 
conference committee.
  In particular, I strongly support the prohibition on fundraising for 
terrorist organizations, and the expedited removal of alien terrorists, 
though as to the latter, I prefer the version in the substitute offered 
earlier by my colleagues Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, which more clearly 
protected the right to counsel and the ability to confront evidence.
  I also strongly support the provision in the conference report which 
deletes impediments in current law to the ability of Federal law 
enforcement organizations to initiate investigations of suspected 
material support to terrorists, because I believe that the scourge of 
terrorism requires a careful recalibration from time to time of the 
balance between civil liberties concerns and law enforcement authority.
  But despite my strong support for many provisions in this bill, I am 
compelled to vote against it because of my strenuous objection to title 
I, the habeas corpus provisions.
  A decision was made by the Republican majority to jam into this bill, 
in the name of fighting terrorism, their long-sought objective of--for 
all intents and purposes--abolishing the ancient writ of habeas corpus. 
As former Attorneys General Levi, Katzenbach, Richardson, and Civiletti 
have written to us, ``Nothing is more deeply rooted in America's legal 
traditions and conscience.'' The writ of habeas corpus is the guarantor 
of our constitutional rights, the bedrock of our Federal system, which 
has always provided an independent Federal court review of the 
constitutionality of State court prosecutions.
  Indeed, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 was the first civil rights law 
enacted after the Civil War, intended to flesh out the habeas clause of 
the Constitution and thereby protect the rights of the newly freed 
slaves by giving Federal judges the power to hear ``all cases where any 
person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the 
Constitution.''
  Until very recently, only once did the Supreme Court undercut this 
authority, in the tragic case of Leo Frank, a Jewish man wrongly 
convicted and sentenced to die for the rape and murder of a Christian 
woman in Georgia. As too often happens when a brutal crime occurs, the 
cry went up in the community to find the perpetrator--or should I say, 
a perpetrator--and Leo Frank, a member of a despised minority, became a 
second victim in this case.
  Leo Frank was unable to present a defense, because an anti-Semitic 
mob chased him from the courtroom. But when he filed a writ of habeas 
corpus to the Federal courts, the Supreme Court held that even though 
his trial was dominated by a mob, it would not order a new trial 
because the Georgia Supreme Court had held that the mob-dominated trial 
did not deprive Frank of due process, and the State supreme court's 
review was not corrupted by a mob.
  The standard in the Frank case was overturned by the Supreme Court 
only a few years later, and has been deplored by Americans of 
conscience in the years since Leo Frank's execution and the subsequent 
emergence of an eyewitness to the crime who established Leo Frank's 
innocence, but who had been afraid to come forward in light of the 
hysteria that surrounded the crime and the trial.
  Let me point out that according to reliable data, since 1978, 40 
percent of the habeas petitions heard by Federal judges in capital 
cases resulted in the reversal of the conviction or death sentence 
because of constitutional violations. One can be dismayed by the number 
of State court trials impaired by constitutional error, as reflected in 
this statistic, but heretofore, we could be heartened that life-tenured 
Federal judges, shielded by constitutional design from local political 
pressures, could restore constitutional rights.
  In this bill, in an action ill-befitting Members of Congress sworn to 
uphold the Constitution, we are about to obliterate the only effective 
means of vindicating those rights. It is not the bill's accelerated 
deadlines or limits on second or successive applications with which I 
differ. I believe that meritorious objections have been raised to 
protracted appeals which deprive families and communities of closure in 
heinous criminal cases. But to require deference by the Federal courts 
to State court determinations of Federal constitutional law, I cannot 
countenance.

  Shame on those who invoke the names of innocents slaughtered in 
Oklahoma City and over the skies of Lockerbie in their quest to 
effectively abolish the writ of habeas corpus. We know that those 
charged with terrorism will invariably be tried in Federal court. 
Extinguishing the right to a writ of habeas corpus will have no bearing 
whatsoever on these cases.
  A letter from the father of an Oklahoma City victim was recently 
shared with me. Mr. Bud Welch states,

       The habeas reform provisions . . . are not known or 
     understood by the families who have been used to lobby on 
     behalf of this bill. . . . Our family knows that meaningful, 
     independent habeas court review of unconstitutional 
     convictions is an essential fail-safe device in our all too 
     human system of justice. And we have learned that this 
     package of ``reforms'' you are being asked to vote for would 
     raise hurdles so high to such essential review as to 
     effectively ensure injustices of wrongful conviction will go 
     unremedied. . . . We consider this a direct threat to us and 
     our loved ones still living who may well find themselves the 
     victim of abusive or mistaken law enforcement and prosecutor 
     conduct and unconstitutional lower court decisions. Two 
     wrongs have never made a right.

  There is another provision in the bill to which I strongly object, 
and several which have not been restored to the bill which I support.
  The summary or expedited exclusion provision of the bill applies to 
all asylum-seekers entering the United States with false or no 
documents, and has nothing whatsoever to do with our efforts to combat 
terrorism. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is ``deeply 
concerned,'' as am I, that this provision ``would almost certainly 
result in the United States returning refugees to countries where their 
lives or freedom would be threatened.''
  Missing from the bill are several provisions which the Justice 
Department views as essential law enforcement tools if our fight 
against terrorism is to be successful, including adding terrorism-
related crimes to the list of crimes which can be the basis for seeking 
a Federal wiretap order, and authorizing multipoint wiretaps. I deplore 
the absence of these provisions from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the American Constitution is a living document which has 
thrived for two centuries because in its strength and vibrancy it has 
accommodated the realities of American life. And one of those 
realities, tragically, is terrorism--not a mere threat, but a reality. 
Because I believe that strong new measures are essential to combating 
terrorism, I support many of the provisions of this conference report.
  But I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill which guts the 
historic means by which Americans enforce the Bill of Rights. That is 
why I will vote against the conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the anniversary of the Oklahoma 
bombing with a bill with the title ``antiterrorism.'' Mr. Speaker, I 
rise to oppose the conference report because it will do little, if 
anything, to reduce terrorism, while at the same time it will, in fact, 
terrorize our Constitution.

[[Page H3611]]

  Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Secretary of State and 
Attorney General can designate terrorist organizations. In effect, 
politicians can designate which organizations are popular and which are 
not popular. The ANC in South Africa could be designated as a terrorist 
organization, and support of that organization would be in violation of 
the law. Politicians can choose which side in El Salvador we ought to 
be supporting or not supporting by designating one or the other as 
terrorist.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens to our rights if we have secret trials 
where people can be deported, based on evidence presented in private, 
without the opportunity to be heard? The so-called crown jewel of the 
bill, the habeas corpus provision, Mr. Speaker, we have heard of the 
frivolous appeals. Forty percent of these appeals are in fact 
successful. People have been denied a fair trial. People are in fact 
sentenced to death who are factually innocent. These are not frivolous 
appeals. Those who have bona fide appeals will have their rights 
denied.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a system where the innocent and the guilty are 
tried by the same procedure, so those who are guilty in fact may have a 
little more time on death row, but those who are innocent have an 
opportunity to present that evidence. If this bill is enacted, we will 
find that those who are factually innocent and can present evidence of 
innocence will in fact be put to death.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not an effective death penalty when we put 
innocent people to death. Those who could show that they are probably 
innocent will not even get a hearing, under this bill. I would hope we 
would defeat this conference report.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and ask that he 
yield to me in return.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, there is so much said here that is not so. 
There are no secret hearings. Nobody gets deported. Even an alien 
terrorist does not get deported unless the evidence that convicts him 
is introduced in trial; in open trial, no secret trials, no secret 
hearings.
  In addition, talking about shredding the Constitution, the National 
Association of Attorneys General has sent us a letter signed by 34 
attorneys general of 34 States supporting habeas in the bill. The 
National Association of District Attorneys has a unanimous resolution. 
So the talk about shredding the Constitution is just far of the mark.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, I rise in support of the 
conference report. I hope it will pass the House by an overwhelming 
margin. I want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde], for putting this bill together, and I want to particularly 
thank the conference committee for keeping two amendments that I wrote 
into the bill back in the Committee on the Judiciary. One extends 
victim compensation to victims of terrorist crimes. We hope there will 
not be anymore terrorist crimes, but if they do occur we think the 
victim compensation laws should apply.
  The second amendment that I introduced allows the sharing of our 
antiterrorist technology to detect explosives, to set them off safely 
if they are detected, and to detect firearms and so forth. We are 
allowed to share that with other countries. We are allowed to share 
that for two reasons: first of all, to protect Americans who go 
overseas. Americans could have been the victims of terrorism, as I 
understand a number of Greek citizens were the victims of terrorism in 
Egypt just this week.
  Second of all, the fact of the matter is that terrorists have more in 
common than they would like to admit to themselves. Regardless of 
whether they are terrorists from the extreme left or terrorists from 
the extreme right, they all have a hatred of democratic governments, 
and they will all attack any democratic government that they have the 
opportunity to attack. Therefore, efforts to stop terrorists in one 
country ultimately benefit the United States, and vice versa.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I think the civil liberties 
objections, that were raised in part to the bill at the beginning, I 
believe have been adequately addressed by the chairman and the other 
members of the conference committee. The objection that still remains 
is the maybe Members who have already said they think this bill should 
be stronger.
  I think in certain respects they may be right. There are certain 
areas where, upon further inspection, law enforcement may deserve 
further authority. But that is not a reason to vote against this bill. 
This bill gives law enforcement a number of tools that law enforcement 
has requested to fight terrorism. This is a good bill. This is a bill 
that should pass. It does not have to be our last word on the issue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just need 10 seconds for 
the truth.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], I am sure will admit that 
there is a provision in this bill that allows the consideration of 
secret evidence that the defendant will never even know about and can 
never refute. That is absolutely counter to everything that our country 
stands for.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer], the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime in 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
generous yielding of time, and for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. In all 
honesty, I have to say that we are faced with a glass that is only half 
full, which means that it is also half empty. Yes, we have made some 
good, solid improvements in this conference. I want to congratulate our 
conference managers, the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Hyde, and Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, for the leadership they 
displayed. Without their having stood up to extremists in their own 
party, this glass before us today would be empty, not just half full. 
They deserve to be congratulated for it.
  But I also must say that this report is still not tough enough. It 
does not fully meet America's needs. The conference report has been 
whittled down to satisfy the small-minded fears of extremists, not 
beefed up to stop terrorism before it starts, and to swiftly track down 
those who commit it.

                              {time}  1415

  Ironically, the managers of this very conference agree that we need 
the tough measures that the President, the Attorney General, and the 
Director of the FBI asked for. They admitted publicly that this report 
leaves out the single most important thing that the FBI needs to fight 
terrorism, effective surveillance through multipoint wiretaps to keep 
up with the new technology of cellular phones.
  But the majority still left them out just like they left out a long 
list of other good tough ideas. Why? Why, I ask? Because the Republican 
majority simply cannot bring itself to stand up to extremism, 
particularly domestic extremism that it has bred and pampered from some 
within its own ranks, and to do the right thing for America.
  Mr. Speaker, in America there have always been paranoid extremists, 
but the fact that their arms are so long that they had enough reach to 
influence this body and strike out provision after provision that law 
enforcement considers essential in the war against terrorism is 
profoundly troubling.
  I have sat face to face with the victims of terrorism and the 
families of the victims of terrorism, from Pan Am 103 through the World 
Trade Center bombing to the atrocity in Oklahoma City. I have met them 
all. When I compare that pain and that danger to the exaggerated 
rhetoric I hear from extremists about this bill, I fear for America and 
I fear for the lives of ordinary Americans.
  I wonder can it really be that a Member of this body said during our 
last debate that he trusts the bloody terrorists of Hamas more than he 
trusts his own democratic Government? Can that really be, I ask myself? 
Can anyone be that foolish?

[[Page H3612]]

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I do not have much time. I would like to finish my 
point. I am sorry. On his time I would like to hear what he has to say 
about it because I respect him so.
  But what I was saying was all of us here, we are part of that 
Government. If any Member really said it, I invite him to come to this 
floor today and explain that remark and tell the American people why it 
was said and what was meant by it.
  Let me finally say this. Even though I think this report should be 
tougher, I will vote for it. The hour is late. I am convinced we cannot 
delay further.
  Tomorrow is the anniversary of the terrible, bloody terrorist bombing 
in Oklahoma City that took the lives of 168 men, women, and children. 
We all hope and we pray that such a senseless and cowardly event will 
never again stain our country. But we cannot depend on hope, we cannot 
wait for perfection. We must act, and I urge that we act today.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime.
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my dear friend, and he really 
is my dear friend, from New York that this Hamas situation is terribly 
unfortunate, it is very painful to me. But I would say to the 
gentleman, I know some Democrats who trusted the Sandinistas more than 
they trusted Ronald Reagan, who attended meetings in Nicaragua and 
ordered our embassy people out. There may be some present here today. 
So it happens on both sides and it is regrettable, in my opinion.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned about the debate 
over this bill being misunderstood by the public. We have a very fine 
bill. It is not as good as some of us would like. That is, there are 
provisions that some of us think should have been in this bill. I 
concur with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] about some of 
them, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. But this bill is 
extremely good.
  On one hand we deal with terrorism specifically by forbidding foreign 
terrorist organizations who are named by the President from being able 
to come to the country and raise money. A provision that I offered that 
was adopted as an amendment to this bill would prohibit Americans from 
being able to go abroad and get money from a foreign terrorist country 
that has been named.
  We do all kinds of things relative to terrorism and then, in addition 
to that, this bill contains three of the seven crime bills that were in 
the Contract With America, the most significant of which has been 
debated a lot today but been voted on many times by this Congress. 
Finally, when the President signs this bill into law after years and 
years of struggle, we will have limited the appeals that death row 
inmates can take and we will have assured that sentences of death in 
this country will be carried out expeditiously, as the American public 
wants.
  Second, we have victim restitution in this law that will be signed by 
the President, which provides a mandatory requirement on judges to make 
victims financially whole at the Federal level. We have a criminal 
alien deportation provision that eases the ability of the United 
States, without an additional hearing, to deport a person who has 
completed a prison term who is an alien.
  But on top of that we have a provision I have worked on for more than 
10 years that, when it is signed into law, will mean that when somebody 
lands at New York's airport or any other airport in the country, or a 
Haitian that in Florida, in Fort Lauderdale, on a beach sets foot on 
the soil, it means they will no longer automatically be able to tie up 
themselves in our court system and stay here. There is an expedited 
exclusion process so that when they claim political asylum, that ``I'm 
fearful I will be politically persecuted if I'm sent home,'' whatever, 
the asylum officers can handle that early without getting all tied up 
in a court system that often meant and means today that aliens who are 
here illegally end up disappearing into our society and staying here 
forever.
  This bill is extraordinarily important for all of these reasons and a 
whole host of others. It is positive legislation that I know some 
think, very minor thoughts I hope, undermines some liberties we have. I 
do not think it does in any way. It balances what is required between 
the responsibility of the Government to protect its citizens against 
foreign terrorists and to protect its citizens in the cases where we 
have heinous crimes, and to expedite the carrying out of penalties when 
the decisions of our court systems have been made to do so, and the 
interests of the individual which have always under our Constitution 
been paramount.
  That balance is in the Constitution. It is in no way destroyed here. 
In fact, it is perfected. It is something that we have debated hard and 
long, and is why the conference report and all the work that the 
gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Illinois and many others 
of us have spent hours doing to make sure that we have not encroached 
in any way on personal liberties.
  This bill, though, will fight foreign terrorism. It will be 
meaningful to the victims of Oklahoma City, especially in the habeas 
corpus provisions that, as I said earlier, after so many years when it 
is signed into law in a few days will mean that after all this fight, 
finally we will end the seemingly endless appeals of death row inmates 
and carry out with swiftness and certainty the sentence of justice in 
this country.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for all of his work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, rushing this bill to the floor just to 
meet a publicity deadline is irresponsible. Once again we are 
sacrificing our people to play election year politics. Americans and 
their civil rights are too important to allow this.
  The right of habeas corpus is a national treasure. It is fundamental 
for all Americans--black and white; liberal and conservative. This 
conference report severely limits that right--all to fuel a national 
frenzy.
  My colleagues, the Constitution says we are all entitled to equal 
protection under the law, but in today's society some of us are more 
equal than others. The reality is, if you have the money to hire a good 
lawyer, you can make it through our legal system. But, if you are a 
poor minority, lacking those resources, you will lose and not have the 
opportunity to prove you are innocent.
  By severely limiting this ultimate right to appeal more innocent 
Americans will unfairly die. Their blood will be on your hands. I 
encourage a ``no'' vote on this conference report.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters] who only shortly ago was nominated by the 
Democratic Steering and Policy Committee to join the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the sixth amendment to 
the United States Constitution. It simply says in all criminal 
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public 
trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime 
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously 
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the 
accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have 
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the 
assistance of counsel for his defense.
  That is the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the 
tragic bombing is not a reason to repeal the sixth amendment to the 
Constitution.
  The habeas corpus reform provisions in this bill which require 
Federal courts to ignore unconstitutional court convictions and 
sentences unless the State court decision, though wrong as a 
constitutional matter, was unreasonably wrong, innocent persons will be 
held in prison or executed in violation of the Constitution. The bill 
would impose unreasonable short time limits for filing a claim for 
habeas corpus relief, limit petitioners to only one round of Federal 
review, and mandates the petitioner meet an unreasonably high clear

[[Page H3613]]

and convincing burden of proof in order to secure relief.
  This business of the conviction or sentence may be a little bit 
unconstitutional, if so, that is OK, as opposed to unreasonably wrong 
or unconstitutional, is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, that is like saying 
one can be a little bit pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are 
not. The sentence or conviction either meet the constitutional muster 
or they do not.
  We cannot and must not shred and defy our Constitution little by 
little, bit by bit. We American public policymakers are better than 
that. We love and respect the Constitution more than that. We cannot in 
the name of expedient politics disrespect the world's greatest 
document, the Constitution of the United States.
  Terrorism is wrong. My sympathy is with the victims, but we must 
maintain our integrity and support the Constitution of the United 
Sates. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this measure.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be defeated, and I 
am sorry to say that I have to disagree with my friend from Illinois, 
Mr. Hyde, on this. I speak to him personally now and request this, a 
reconsideration with respect to habeas corpus.
  This past weekend I saw a student production, in an attic in a home 
in Honolulu, of ``Death and the Maiden,'' Ariel Dorfman's play about 
Chile. The principal theme was when habeas corpus is absent, there we 
have authoritarianism and dictatorship. It leads to torture.
  In Dorfman's essay on political code and literary code, and I am 
quoting from it:

       Terror then has a public character. As such it leads to a 
     great ideological operation which authorizes, in the name of 
     Western Christian values, a purifying crusade against the 
     forces of the devil and of the anti-Nation.

  He goes on to say:

       The principal obsession of authoritarian politics is to 
     suppress history and those who could modify it, postulating 
     an unchangeable and superior reality, God, father, and 
     family, to which one owes loyalty.

  This is the difficulty. If we abandon habeas corpus, we abandon one 
of the foundation stones of the United States of America.

                              {time}  1430

  You have heard me on this floor expound before on the right to a 
trial, the right to be able to vote freely, the right to sue, and the 
fourth leg of that foundation is habeas corpus, the right to be brought 
before a Federal court to say that your rights have been violated. If 
we take that away, then we are succumbing to terrorism. We are 
terrorizing the Constitution.
  The time lapses. But the Constitution goes on. I ask, please, Mr. 
Hyde, reconsideration on the habeas corpus part of this bill, and then 
perhaps we could vote on the terrorist bill with full meaning.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], in whose district 
the Federal building rests that was bombed.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report to S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act.
  A year has passed since downtown Oklahoma City was ravaged by the 
worst domestic terrorist attack our country has ever endured. Yes my 
friends, a year has passed since we as a nation watched in horror the 
images of the pain and suffering that this heinous act brought. The 
name Alfred P. Murrah will be etched in our minds for many years to 
come, and most assuredly April 19 will never be the same.
  As you vote today and reflect on the events of tomorrow, I implore 
you to remember those who perished and have long since been laid to 
rest. Our citizen's scars are deep and open wounds still abound. 
Oklahoma City is an innocent slowly rebuilding itself back to the 
greatness it strives to attain. Although we cannot turn back the clock 
and prevent this horrendous act from occurring, we must pass this 
antiterrorism conference report.
  This bill will bring an end to the abuse of our Nation's appeals 
process. It will ensure this country has an effective and enforceable 
death penalty. It means justice will be served, and that the guilty 
will receive their punishment in a swift manner.
  Further, the measure provides for closed-circuit broadcasting of 
court proceedings in cases where a trial has been moved out of State, 
more than 350 miles from the location in which the proceedings would 
have taken place.
  This provision is timely in light of the upcoming bombing trial. I 
believe all Americans who must endure such a tragedy, like the people 
of Oklahoma, deserve the opportunity to view the trial in their State. 
This measure provides the best way to ensure that those most severely 
impacted by this tragedy will have access to the court proceedings of 
those accused in this case.
  I would like to thank Chairman  Hyde and his staff for their 
assistance on this measure. You have done a great service for Oklahoma 
City and the entire country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 735. It 
is truly the right thing to do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this has been an important debate, and I 
think that it has become clear that this is a politically motivated 
bill, driven first by the National Rifle Association and Mr. Barr, and 
then finally by the 73 galloping freshmen Republicans who would not 
allow a deal to be made, and finally we were able to patch a little bit 
together.
  We are dealing with a bill now that started off with no habeas 
corpus, we do not need it. But then, because there was nothing in the 
bill, we needed it.
  So what do we have here? What we have is a bill that is missing, 
missing. Wiretaps for terrorist offenses, not in the antiterrorist 
conference report before this House. The current law allows for 
wiretaps for everything from fraud, embezzlement, destroying cars, 
numerous felonies, but the bill rejects on careful consideration the 
proposal that we be able to wiretap for crimes of terrorism and crimes 
where weapons of mass destruction are used.
  Are you serious that this is an antiterrorist bill?
  So while a Federal agent can get a wiretap if he believes a car is to 
be destroyed, he may not be able to get a wiretap if he believes an act 
of terror or mass destruction or murder is going to take out a building 
or someone is planning to gas the New York subway.
  How silly and how unserious.
  Similarly, while current law allows for emergency exceptions to the 
requirement of a court order for a wiretap in instances where the agent 
learns a criminal act is imminent, this bill refuses to extend that 
constitutionally permissible emergency circumstance exception to 
terrorism cases.
  So, there you have it. Taggants? Oh, well, we put it back in, but we 
exempted black and smokeless powder. I wonder why? Well, it does not 
take a scientist to figure that one out.
  So I guess you guys have proved your point. I mean, you are going to 
show that we got a terrorism bill on an anniversary and that, further, 
we put the President of the United States in a tremendously 
embarrassing position where he has to swallow a compromise of habeas 
corpus.
  Mr. Speaker, reject this bill and let us in Committee on the 
Judiciary go back and do it right.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer] for his cooperation. He has been very helpful on 
this bill, and I did not want to let the time pass without doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not abolish habeas corpus. I keep hearing that. We 
strengthen habeas corpus by forbidding its abuse. That is what we do.
  Now, I am the last one to instruct the newest member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary from California on the Constitution. I am the last 
one. I am not going to instruct her. I am going to instruct the world 
that the sixth amendment does not apply to deportation proceedings. 
That is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I just

[[Page H3614]]

thought I would throw that in the hopper.
  There are no secret trials. There is classified information which 
will remain classified, but a fair summary of that is given to the 
alien and that has to be adequate to prepare a defense. If it is not, 
the proceedings are over.
  Now, groups supporting this legislation are Citizens for Law and 
Order; the National Troopers Coalition, 45,000 members; the Christian 
Coalition; the Anti-Defamation League; the Leon and Marilyn Klinghoffer 
Foundation; Families of Pan Am 103 Lockerbie; Survivors of the Oklahoma 
City Bombing; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National 
Association of Police Organizations; the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America; National Sheriffs' Association; National Rifle Association; 
International Association of Fire Chiefs; the Governor of the State of 
Oklahoma, a Republican; the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, 
a Democrat; the National Association of Attorneys General passed a 
resolution that was unanimous; and the National Association of District 
Attorneys.
  All of these folks love the Constitution and would not do anything to 
damage it or brutalize it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this country will pause in 
sorrowful remembrance as we observe the 1-year anniversary of the 
tragic bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. This 
incident shook the fabric of our Nation and illustrated the threat 
posed to us all by terrorism. Oklahoma City is the driving force behind 
the renewed push for anti-terrorism legislation. I believe we need an 
anti-terrorism bill. I do not believe that the conference report before 
us today is the anti-terrorism bill we need.
  We, as Members of Congress, have a particular responsibility to be 
the guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That 
responsibility is not always easy and it is not always popular. It is, 
however, always necessary. I oppose this anti-terrorism bill because I 
believe some provisions in it violate the Constitution. If we pass it, 
we are ignoring our duty to guard the basic principles upon which our 
great Nation is founded.
  I oppose a number of provisions in this bill but will focus my 
remarks on my concerns about the habeas corpus reforms contained in it. 
To many people, habeas corpus sounds like an obscure legal phrase with 
minimal relevance to their lives. This misunderstanding could not be 
further from the truth. Habeas corpus is the mechanism by which a 
citizen in this Nation who is deprived of liberty can petition an 
independent court to test the legality of his or her detention. Habeas 
corpus safeguards our individual liberty and the bill before us today 
restricts habeas corpus appeals.
  The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are dangerous to ordinary 
citizens. They increase the risk that innocent persons could be held in 
prison in violation of the constitution, or even executed. For the 
first time, a use it or lose it approach is being applied to a basic 
constitutional right. Constitutional rights are not time-bound, they 
are timeless or they are worthless.
  The bill before us mandates strict habeas corpus filing deadlines 
that ordinary citizens, especially those lacking financial resources, 
may not be able to meet. It limits their right in almost all cases to 
only one round of Federal review, and severely limits the power that 
Federal courts have to correct unconstitutional incarceration. It cuts 
off most opportunities for incarcerated citizens to appeal to higher 
courts for relief.
  The habeas corpus provisions in this bill are reason enough to oppose 
it. They are certainly not the only thing wrong with this bill. I would 
also like to note for the record my concern about the bill's changes to 
asylum law which severely threaten our country's rich history of 
providing refuge for people fleeing persecution in their homelands. The 
bill eliminates the suspension of deportation for anyone who enters 
this country without inspection. It also establishes summary removal at 
ports of entry if people lack valid documents. Valid documents are 
often difficult to find or to protect in war-torn countries.
  As some of my colleagues know, I have been particularly concerned 
over the years about the plight of victims of rape, torture, and 
domestic violence. I am pleased that the Justice Department has a 
heightened sensibility to the particular problems faced by women who 
have experienced these crimes in their homelands. Rape is being used as 
a tool of terror and war in civil conflicts around the world. In many 
of these countries, rape victims may be unable to articulate 
immediately their fear of persecution, especially to a stranger who is 
usually a man. As a result of the provisions in this bill, these women, 
lacking documentation, will be summarily returned to their homelands.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the need to fight terrorism and I can 
support anti-terrorism legislation which does so while preserving our 
precious constitutional rights. This conference report does not meet 
that test and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the members of the 
House Judiciary Committee and other Members of the House who have 
worked diligently to get an antiterrorism bill passed in this Congress. 
As we commemorate the 1 year anniversary of those 168 Americans who 
lost their lives in the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma 
City, it is fitting and proper that we consider this bill.
  This bill, however, is really a weak antiterrorism bill. It does not 
give law enforcement officials all of the tools that they need to 
combat antiterrorism. For example, they will not have the emergency 
wiretapping authority and the ability to engage in multipoint wiretaps. 
Moreover, the bill's provisions relating to a cop-killer bullet study 
have been severely watered down. The study would only focus on 
reviewing the quality of police armor instead of concentrating on the 
types of bullets used to kill police officers.
  It is important to point out that the perpetrators of the World Trade 
Center bombing were successfully prosecuted under existing law. While 
the intent of this bill was good, it focuses on many matters unrelated 
to preventing international terrorism.
  I have some further concerns about the impact of this bill on the 
fundamental rights of all Americans. It dramatically expands the powers 
of the Federal Government by granting authority to the Secretary of 
State and Secretary of the Treasury to designate certain organizations 
as terrorist organizations. While this designation is subject to 
congressional and judicial review, it still would result in a chilling 
effect on the rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of association 
that Americans enjoy today, because this bill may encourage false 
accusations against certain groups.
  Additionally, the bill modifies the current application of the habeas 
corpus doctrine by requiring Federal courts to ignore unconstitutional 
court convictions and sentences by State courts unless the State court 
decision was unreasonably wrong. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, 
both Republicans and Democrats, have argued that this provision is 
unconstitutional. Federal courts would lose the power to correct 
unconstitutional incarceration. If this bill becomes law, it could 
result in innocent persons being held in prison in violation of the 
Constitution and--even executed--because the bill imposes unreasonably 
short time limits for filing a claim of habeas corpus relief. All of us 
can cite instances in which innocent persons were released as a result 
of a comprehensive and fair review of their cases through the habeas 
corpus process in Federal courts.
  The petitioner must also file the petition within 1 year after 
conviction becomes final. It limits almost all petitioners to only one 
round of Federal review and requires the petitioner to meet an 
extremely high clear and convincing burden of proof in order to secure 
relief.
  What this bill does is provide selective due process and selective 
civil liberties. It allows the Government to arbitrarily designate 
those who are terrorists, and infringes the fundamental privacy rights 
of all Americans. We must punish to the fullest extent of the law those 
who commit terrorist acts against our Nation, and innocent citizens. 
However, I equally believe that we must carefully consider the bill 
before us and firmly support the constitutional rights of all 
Americans.
  This bill is not as strong on measures that would prevent terrorism 
but it is filled with special loopholes that will not effectively help 
law enforcement officials in their fight against terrorism.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully review this bill and its potential 
impact on the real issue to fight against terrorism and how it would 
strike a balance in preserving the rights of our citizens.
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today, I was inadvertently 
recorded as a ``yes'' vote in favor of final passage of the House-
Senate conference report for S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act. 
After voting, I did not check to see how the machine had recorded my 
vote. My vote should have been a ``no'' vote for reasons that I will 
enumerate below.
  Presently, there are more than 270 Federal laws that address domestic 
incidents of terrorism including penalties for specific types of 
murder, kidnapping, and assault committed with political intent. I am 
not convinced that adding additional laws will do anything to prevent 
another Oklahoma City tragedy from occurring.
  The expansion of Federal law enforcement agencies via an additional 
authorization of $1 billion is fiscally imprudent and only gives a 
rubber stamp to agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms [BATF] that have come under close scrutiny in recent years.
  While the multiple wire tapping provisions are not in this 
legislation, provisions are in

[[Page H3615]]

place for intercepting wireless data through e-mail and document 
transmission when done by a wireless modem or through a laptop 
connected to a cellular phone. Specifically, the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act [ECPA] provided these protections which have 
now been eliminated in section 731 of the conference report. With the 
phenomenal growth of communication via the Internet and on-line 
services, I am concerned about the violation of privacy rights of law 
abiding Americans.
  Finally, it is important to keep in mind that there is a very valid 
argument negating the need for any counterterrorism legislation or at 
least in its present scope and scale. We live in a very free society 
that places a high premium on civil liberties.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to clarify the record on 
this legislation.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention Act, and to honor the 
victims and salute the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing. Those 
168 innocent people who died in the most heinous act of terrorism 
committed on American soil; 19 children and 149 adults perished. The 
destruction does not end with these haunting figures. Hundreds of lives 
have been altered and the mindset of the entire Nation has changed 
because of one irrevocable act. The entire country has been suffering 
together for 1 year.
  The events of April 19, 1995, are ingrained in all of our minds, 
hearts, and souls. We no longer look at our lives through the prism of 
safety and rationality, rather we have been forced to confront the 
evils that lurk in the dark and manifest themselves in the light. It 
was at 9:02 a.m., in the full light of a spring day that our 
perceptions of civility were shattered.
  The rise of extremism and militant fundamentalism within our borders 
is horrifying and sickening. We must not surrender to terrorism, we 
must conquer it. We cannot allow the seeds of destruction to be sewn in 
our country. We must send the message loud and clear that the United 
States will act decisively against those who attempt to undermine 
civility. While the antiterrorism bill is not a panacea, it is a step 
in the right direction.
  The Federal building in Oklahoma City no longer stands, but the U.S. 
Constitution and the laws that govern our great Nation are our iron 
shield. We must strengthen the death penalty for terrorist crimes which 
result in the death of an American citizen abroad or at home, we must 
improve current law to facilitate Government deportation of criminal 
aliens, and we must allow U.S. citizens to bring suit against a 
sponsoring terrorist nation in Federal court. The Terrorism Prevention 
Act accomplishes these necessary goals.
  The site of the Federal building in Oklahoma City is now an empty, 
fenced-in field but the memory of what occurred on that soil on April 
19, 1995, will live on forever. On this day, let us remember those 
innocent men, women, and children whose lives were ripped out from 
underneath them. We cannot bring these innocents back, but we can work 
to assure that the perpetrators of violent terrorist acts will 
themselves be judged.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the conference committee included 
the Martini amendment death penalty language in this legislation. On 
March 21, 1995, in the early evening a man walked into the Montclair, 
NJ, postal substation in my congressional district and summarily killed 
two postal employees and two customers. I offered the Martini amendment 
because I wanted to ensure that criminal acts like the Montclair postal 
shooting would be covered by the death penalty.
  Postal workers Stanley Scott Walensky and Ernest Spruill and 
Montclair residents Robert Leslie and George Lomoga had their lives cut 
short in a senseless crime. We cannot bring these victims back, but we 
can send a strong, clear message to criminals like Christopher Green 
that their actions will not go unpunished.
  The Martini language, formally known as the Death Penalty 
Clarification Act of 1995 (H.R. 1811), would expand the Federal death 
penalty statute to include situations in which a defendant, ``* * * 
intentionally kills or attempts to kill more than one person in a 
single criminal episode.'' This provision sends a clear message to the 
criminal that execution style multiple killings will not go unpunished 
because of a loophole in Federal law. It will ensure that just and fair 
punishment is administered to individuals who fail to live by society's 
rules.
  My heart goes out to the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, and 
I wish them good health and happiness in their futures. We, as a 
nation, must continue to help each other in the healing process.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report 
on S. 735, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
  As the people in the 19th Congressional District know, I voted 
against the House version of the antiterrorism bill. I was concerned 
that it was overly broad in scope and encroached on individual rights 
of law-abiding citizens.
  As the conference committee worked to merge the House and Senate 
versions of the bill, I noticed a number of important changes which led 
me to the conclusion that I could support this bill, and hopefully 
provide a meaningful response to the threat of terrorism.
  The final bill allows the State Department to designate foreign 
groups as terrorist organizations, bars members and representatives of 
groups designated as terrorists from entering the United States, and 
prohibits such groups from engaging in fundraising in this country. It 
prohibits U.S. aid to countries providing assistance or military 
equipment to terrorist nations, unless the President waives those 
provisions. It includes provisions taken from the House bill which will 
allow deportation of immigrants who are or may be engaged in terrorist 
activity, and allows the Government to use classified information to 
deport terrorists.
  Importantly, the conference report did not increase investigative 
powers such as extended wiretap authority for Federal law enforcement 
officials. We all have a mutual interest in making sure that our law 
enforcement agencies and the men and women who put their lives on the 
line in performance of their duties are adequately trained and 
equipped. But our rights as individual citizens must not be 
compromised, and I opposed efforts to expand certain powers which I saw 
as too invasive. That is why I supported the Barr amendment during 
House deliberation, and why I am able to support the final version 
before us today. The final version is also stronger on issues of 
compensating victims of terrorist attacks.
  I note today the strong, bipartisan support for the bill which is 
before us, and take note of the overwhelming vote in favor of the bill 
in the U.S. Senate. This has been a process of careful consideration, 
not a rush to react, and as we near the 1 year anniversary of the 
Oklahoma City bombing, I believe we have before a vehicle to move ahead 
with an appropriate law enforcement response which does not infringe on 
rights we hold dear as citizens of a free nation.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this bill. I do so with deep regret because I would have hoped that 
this Congress could do something meaningful to respond to the dangerous 
threat of terrorism. Americans need to be safe here and abroad, and if 
we are to fight this new threat to our security, we need new tools in 
the battle. But when it comes to the fight against terrorism, this bill 
does too little. Sadly this legislation does not confine itself to the 
fight against terrorism, and it is here where the bill goes too far.
  Sacrificing our Constitution and the integrity of our judicial system 
is too high a price to pay for an antiterrorism bill that, sadly, does 
not do enough. The right of every American to a fair hearing in court 
will be severely undermined by this legislation. No punishment should 
be dispensed in a manner that violates an individual's right to a fair 
hearing. This bill jeopardizes that right, not just for those on death 
row, but also for those who face other punishments.
  This bill increases the risk that innocent persons would be held in 
prison in violation of the Constitution--and possibly even executed--
because the bill imposes unreasonably short time limits for filing a 
claim of habeas corpus relief, limits almost all petitioners to only 
one round of Federal review, and requires petitioners to meet clear and 
convincing burden of proof standard in order to get relief.
  This is not right and I will not support such a move.
  The bill leaves out provisions which would have: added terrorism 
crimes to the list of those for which wiretaps can be approved, 
included terrorism crimes under RICO statutes, and have permitted our 
law enforcement agencies to draw upon the expertise to address the 
threat of chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction.
  When we need to give law enforcement officials new powers to 
investigate these new threats, we fail to produce.
  As well, this bill caves in to the demands of the gun lobby when it 
comes to confronting the threat posed by cop killer bullets. I have 
joined many of my colleagues in calling for a ban on these bullets 
which have only one purpose--piercing body armor. We could not achieve 
this victory this year, but hoped that a study of this ammunition would 
alert the public to the need for action. But now even this study has 
been disarmed. Rather than study the bullets that can pierce armor and 
kill law enforcement officers, this bill dances around the subject to 
the tune called by the NRA.
  We face a serious threat from terrorism. We need to respond in a 
meaningful and comprehensive way. Unfortunately this bill is not up to 
the task at hand. It makes too many compromises on the fundamental 
issues and threatens the rights of all Americans to a fair hearing in 
our judicial system.

[[Page H3616]]

  This is not the way to fight terrorism and that is why I will vote 
against the measure before us.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this antiterrorism 
legislation.
  Those conversant with our Constitution know that, in almost its first 
words, it speaks of the duty to ``insure domestic tranquility.'' That 
is a difficult task--especially in a country that values freedom as 
highly as our own. Yet it is a duty we must carry out, because, as our 
Founders understood, freedom requires tranquility to flourish.
  This legislation will help us protect our freedom and tranquility at 
a time when violence is a fact of daily life. We have seen the scars 
left by terrorists in countries around the world, and now, tragically, 
in our own. So it is high time we take these steps to strengthen law 
enforcement and protect Americans. I will support this conference 
report, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to vote on the Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, I would like to focus on the 
fundraising provision of this legislation. Ever since the bombings at 
the World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City, exhaustive efforts have 
been made to curtail fundraising activities of terrorist organizations 
here in the United States. It is completely unacceptable that a 
terrorist organization like Hamas can establish a fundraising center 
just down the road from the United States Capitol.
  The fundraising provision in the anti-terrorism bill serves as a 
crucial first step at ending extremist fundraising operations here in 
the United States. It enables the United States Government to designate 
those organizations, such as Hamas, that serve solely as agents of 
violence and destruction, and prevents them from raising money here in 
America. Additionally, it prohibits individuals from providing material 
resources to designated terrorist organizations.
  But this is only a first step. During the House debate, I drafted an 
amendment that would have created an even stronger fundraising 
provision. It would have closed several of the loopholes that allow 
nondesignated organizations from serving as fundraising conduits for 
the benefit of outlawed terrorist groups. It would have broadened the 
scope of individuals prohibited from assisting these violent and 
ruthless organizations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
the near future to strengthen the current fundraising provision and 
pass legislation that would force violent extremists to leave the 
United States and look elsewhere to find their blood money.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to 
section 422 of the conference report on S. 735, which provides for the 
summary exclusion of persons attempting to enter the United States 
without proper documentation.
  It is important that we exclude persons who would abuse our generous 
immigration laws, and it is important that the process of exclusion be 
a speedy one. It is also important, however, that the process be fair--
and particularly that it not result in sending genuine refugees back to 
persecution.
  Section 422 provides that no person shall be summarily excluded if, 
in the opinion of an asylum officer at the port of entry, he or she has 
a credible fear of persecution. Unfortunately, the definitions of 
asylum officer and of credible fear of persecution are not as clear as 
they might be.
  In particular, the definition of asylum officer requires professional 
training in asylum law, country conditions, and interviewing 
techniques, but does not state how much training or what kind. I am 
informed that assurances have been given from the staff members who 
worked on drafting the conference report that there is absolutely no 
intention that officers should be put in these positions who are not 
genuine asylum officers. Mr. Chairman, the INS now has a professionally 
trained corps of asylum officers, who have had substantial training in 
handling asylum cases. It should be clear that when we in Congress 
speak of asylum officers, we mean these professionally trained 
officers--people who by training and experience think of themselves as 
adjudicators rather than as enforcement officers--not some other 
officer who has been given a short course in asylum law and then given 
this extraordinary power to send people back to dangerous places.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it should also be clear that our asylum officers 
will need to be very careful in applying the credible fear standard. In 
a close case, they must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. 
There are also some countries--such as Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, 
and Iraq--in which persecution is so pervasive that any credible 
applicant would have a significant chance of success in the asylum 
process. Asylum applicants should not be returned to these totalitarian 
regimes without a full hearing.
  I hope that regulations will be promptly adopted that explicitly 
provide for these and other safeguards in the summary exclusion 
process.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  Today I am going to vote in favor of S. 735, the Terrorism Prevention 
Act conference report. As I stated throughout debate on the 
antiterrorism bill I have had concerns that the bill might be used as a 
vehicle to expand Federal power over law-abiding citizens. This was my 
reason for opposing the original House bill, I was concerned that a 
House-Senate conference would add a number of undesirable Senate 
provisions. A number of bad ideas were in play, including expansive 
Federal wiretapping authority, included in the Senate bill, excessive 
power for certain Federal law enforcement agencies, and excessive 
spending.
  I have followed the conference closely, and I am now satisfied that 
the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens are protected, and that 
Federal authority is appropriately restricted. The bill focuses on 
international terrorist organizations, a matter of Federal 
jurisdiction.
  I want to strongly commend the death penalty reform measures of this 
conference agreement. I have always supported and cosponsored 
legislation to limit frivolous, repetitive appeals of convicted 
murderers on death row. I also strongly support mandatory victim 
restitution provisions included in this bill. For far too long we have 
ignored the rights of victims.
  This bill helps focus our criminal justice system to where it should 
be, on swift and certain punishment for criminals and justice for 
victims.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in support of this 
conference report because despite some defects which, quite frankly, 
could easily have been fixed without compromising the fight against 
terrorism, it will give law enforcement important and overdue tools in 
the fight against international terrorism.
  Thankfully, the conferees put back many important anti-terrorist 
provisions that were stripped out by a majority under the sway of the 
extreme right. I commend the conferees for their vision and courage.
  This bill will give law enforcement the ability to crack down on 
fundraising by international terrorist organizations in the United 
States. No act of terrorism, anywhere in the world, should have a 
return address in the United States.
  It will allow victims of terrorism to receive restitution from their 
victimizers whether the terrorists are governments or organizations.
  It will add new criminal jurisdiction and penalties for terrorist 
acts so that law enforcement can reach the terrorists wherever they 
are.
  It will give our Government an enhanced ability to deport alien 
terrorists.
  It will enable law enforcement to battle terrorists who use chemical, 
biological, and nuclear weapons or who use plastic or other more 
conventional explosives.
  It provides new resources to those law enforcement agencies charged 
with fighting terrorism.
  At the same time, the conferees have repaired many of the dangerous 
and unnecessary civil rights violations in the bill reported by the 
Judiciary Committee, and which the distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from California and I sought to correct in our substitute. I 
am pleased that the conferees have responded to some of our concerns.
  This bill no longer allows asylum officers summarily to send refugees 
back into the hands of their oppressors without review.
  This bill no longer allows individuals to be deported without knowing 
the charges or basis of that deportation. They will now be allowed to 
select their own attorneys and those attorneys will have the ability to 
consult fully with their clients about the case.
  This bill provides clearer standards for designating organizations as 
terrorist organizations and court review of that designation.
  Unfortunately, this bill still guts the rules governing the writ of 
habeas corpus in ways that I am confident the courts will ultimately 
rule are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I wish we had the votes to 
strip these provisions from the bill, but I know we do not.
  We will prevail in court on habeas, but today we prevail over 
terrorists and their cowardly and bloody handiwork whether they are in 
Cairo or Jerusalem or in Oklahoma City. We also prevail in the 
protection of many civil liberties that had been threatened by earlier 
versions of this bill. As with any compromise, I am unhappy with parts 
of this bill, but I am also pleased at the important progress we have 
made.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference agreement.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, today we will take up the most pro-victim 
bill Congress has considered in almost a decade. H.R. 2703 establishes 
tough new statutes to allow Federal law enforcement officials to combat 
and punish acts of domestic and international terrorism. This measure 
combines crime legislation from the Contract With America and 
additional

[[Page H3617]]

provisions designed to bring criminals to justice while getting justice 
for victims.
  H.R. 2703 makes the death penalty an effective and certain punishment 
by ending interminable delays and endless appeals. Further, the victim 
restitution act ensures that our judicial system pays victims of crime 
the utmost attention by implementing compliance standards for court 
ordered payments to crime victims as a condition for probation or 
parole.
  For my district, where illegal immigration's impact is felt more than 
in any other region, the bill includes essential initiatives to improve 
criminal alien deportation. This provision will expedite the immediate 
removal of aliens convicted of Federal offenses after they serve their 
prison terms. In addition, the bill will deny asylum procedure for such 
aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to ensuring 
the safety and well being of every American. The Effective Death 
Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996 guarantees Americans the 
protections they want and deserve while providing tough penalties on 
those who would break our laws. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this measure.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the terrorism 
prevention act, and want to commend our distinguished Judiciary 
Committee chairman, Henry Hyde, for his excellent work on this issue.
  The escalation of criminal and terrorist activity in our country is 
robbing Americans of the freedom to walk their neighborhood streets, 
the right to feel secure in their homes, and the ability to feel 
confident that their children are safe in their schools.
  We cannot protect American lives and safety or preserve national 
security without preventing alien terrorists from entering the country. 
Alien terrorists are often able to enter the United States despite the 
fact that their entry violates our national interests. In several 
cases, the Department of Justice has spent many years and hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to remove terrorist aliens from the United States.
  Terrorist organizations have developed sophisticated international 
networks that allow their members great freedom of movement and 
opportunity to strike. The need for special procedures to adjudicate 
deportation charges against alien terrorists is evident.
  An increasing number of crimes are being committed by noncitizens: 
both legal and illegal aliens. Over one-quarter of all Federal 
prisoners are noncitizens--an astounding 42 percent of all Federal 
prisoners in my home State of Texas. Recidivism rates for criminal 
aliens are high--a recent GAO study revealed that 77 percent of 
noncitizens convicted of felonies are arrested at least one more time.
  Mr. Speaker, too few criminal aliens are being deported today. The 
deportation process can be years in length. S. 735 streamlines the 
deportation process by eliminating frivolous challenges to deportation 
orders; expanding the list of aggravated felonies for which aliens can 
be deported; and closing the gap between the end of an alien's criminal 
sentence and the date the alien is deported from the United States.
  Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of those who abuse 
both our immigration and criminal laws. S. 735 ensures that the 
forgotten Americans--the citizens who obey the law, pay their taxes, 
and seek to raise their children in safety--will be protected from the 
criminals and terrorists who want to prey on them. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on the terrorism prevention act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HYDE. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 293, 
nays 133, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               YEAS--293

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--133

     Abercrombie
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Campbell
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Tate
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Coleman
     Fields (TX)
     Hayes
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Rose
     Tanner
     Thompson

[[Page H3618]]

                              {time}  1457

  Ms. FURSE, Ms. McKINNEY, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. GRAHAM changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CHAPMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________