[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM BILL

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, much has happened in the year 
since this bill left the Senate. Oklahoma City has begun the healing 
process from the senseless violence it suffered at the hands of a 
terrorist bomber. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a 
terrorist. Terrorism in the Middle East, against subway riders in Tokyo 
and elsewhere have reminded us of the vulnerability of free societies 
to this kind of senseless violence. The unabomber's reign of terror has 
apparently been brought to an end by the FBI. And the antiterrorism 
bill that left this Senate has come back, in some ways, a better bill: 
It is less invasive of civil liberties when it comes to eavesdropping 
by Federal agents, and it prevents defendants from being deported based 
only on evidence they are not allowed to understand.
  What happened to Rabin shows us all that terrorism is not going away. 
What may have been a success in stopping the unabomber shows that the 
Federal Government can fight back. I support this bill because I 
recognize that terrorism is a threat that puts all our lives at risk, 
and that we must bolster national antiterrorism efforts, including by 
providing to law enforcement and the courts new tools to combat cutting 
edge technologies of violence and increasingly bold villains, in order 
to stem the tide of destruction.
  I have made it clear that I do not support everything in this bill. I 
voted against the Senate bill last year largely because of its broad 
habeas corpus provisions, which will limit Federal court review in 
death penalty cases. I am also opposed to this bill's provisions to 
weaken protections for refugees and asylees fleeing persecution in 
other countries which has nothing to do with antiterrorism efforts. 
While I am still profoundly opposed to these provisions, I have 
concluded that on balance this bill should pass.
  There is much in this bill that is good, that will address concerns 
Minnesotans have expressed to me. This bill will make a real difference 
in the fight against terrorism. It includes many necessary changes to 
our Federal criminal laws. It will make it a Federal crime to plan or 
to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. It will make it a 
Federal crime to plan terrorist attacks in the United States, even if 
the attacks are carried out overseas. It includes increased penalties 
for conspiracies involving explosives. It will make it easier to detect 
plastic explosives, and to track chemicals of which most bombs are 
composed. It will make it harder for terrorist groups to raise funds in 
the United States. It provides mandatory restitution for victims of 
terrorist acts. It will help prevent the sale of arms to terrorist 
states by third parties. And it expands the authority of government 
officials to deal with threats posed by chemical, biological, and 
nuclear technologies, involving deadly nuclear materials.
  While I did not agree with every aspect of the 1994 crime bill I 
supported it because I concluded that, on balance, it contained many 
effective provisions to fight crime and violence. By the same token 
this is a bill that on balance can make an impact against terrorism.
  I voted against provisions in this bill that I fiercely opposed, and 
supported many changes that were not agreed to. The President and 
Members of both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill have nearly 
unanimously come together in this statement against destruction and 
violence. Because this bill successfully addresses a threat that 
endangers all of us and because a unified effort makes a strong 
statement and therefore my voice can help make it stronger, I join my 
colleagues in its support. 

                          ____________________