[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.
____________________