[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4006-S4007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 735

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 1 year ago last week the American people 
were forced to experience the unimaginable when terrorists placed a 
bomb in a Federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent 
citizens, some of them children. In response to that grisly deed, as 
well as the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, 
and the downing of Pan American flight 103 over Scotland, the United 
States Senate passed S. 735, the ``Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention 
Act,'' on June 7, 1995. The measure, I think it is important to note, 
was supported by 91 Senators, myself included.
  I supported that bill because I believed it was a good piece of 
legislation that went a long way toward helping law enforcement 
agencies combat the rising scourge of domestic terrorism. It was an 
effective measure with many important provisions--important crime-
fighting tools--specifically designed to thwart this growing menace. 
Our goal, or so I thought, had been to stop domestic terrorism before 
it could happen; to let terrorists know that they were going to be put 
down before they could carry out their cowardly acts.
  When S. 735 left the Senate last June, there were provisions in the 
bill that would have permitted Federal law enforcement agencies to 
pursue known or suspected terrorist groups with the same means that 
those agencies now employ when pursuing organized crime, or murderers, 
or bank swindlers. And, as I said, those provisions were endorsed by 91 
Senators.
  Unfortunately, though, what started out last June as a very 
worthwhile effort, has this past week been reported back by the 
conference committee disemboweled. In fact, this measure has been so 
thoroughly gutted that I do not see how anyone can honestly call it a 
terrorism ``prevention'' bill. Almost every provision designed to 
enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement officials, almost every 
provision designed to make it more difficult for the terrorist to 
operate, and almost every provision that was fashioned to put a stop to 
this type of activity, was simply sacrificed in conference.
  Mr. President, consider this: The original Dole-Hatch bill, and the 
version that passed the Senate, contained language that would have 
added certain terrorist offenses to the current long list of crimes for 
which Federal law enforcement authorities can seek a wiretap. Using 
weapons of mass destruction, providing material support to terrorists, 
or engaging in violence at international airports--all of these were 
activities for which a wiretap could have been sought. But the language 
that would have added those crimes to the wiretap list was dropped by 
the conference committee. Consequently, what that means is that, right 
now, the FBI can institute a wiretap on someone suspected of bribing a 
bank officer, but not on someone who may be about to attack the New 
York City subway system with poisonous gas.
  That is ludicrous. It simply boggles the mind. If this is supposed to 
be a bill to ``prevent'' terrorism, then how can we tie the hands of 
law enforcement authorities like that? What kind of message does that 
send to some deranged individual who may be plotting a terrorist 
activity? What does that say to those organizations that practice 
international terrorism and may be planning to target the United 
States? Chasing terrorists with fewer tools than we would use to 
apprehend someone suspected of bribing a bank official is not, in my 
opinion, the way to ``prevent'' terrorism.
  When the Senate considered S. 735 last year, it added, by a vote of 
77 to 19, a provision that would have allowed law enforcement 
authorities to obtain what are called multipoint wiretaps. In effect, 
these special wiretaps allow officials to target an individual suspect 
rather than an individual telephone. Given the rapid development of 
communications technology, it is nearly impossible for Federal 
officials to conduct meaningful investigations of suspected terrorists 
when all that person has to do is change telephones. Right now, a 
terrorist can move from his home phone to a car phone to a cellular 
phone and law enforcement officials--unless they can prove such 
movement is intentionally meant to thwart the surveillance--will be 
left in the dust. But the provision to allow multipoint wiretaps was 
dropped in conference.

  Again, such action defies logic. How can we say that we are seriously 
working to prevent terrorism when we will not even allow officials to 
keep pace with the terrorists. What message are we sending when we say 
that the only terrorists worthy of stopping before they act are those 
stupid enough to use a single telephone? This is not, I am sorry to 
say, prevention.
  Mr. President, last June the Senate also adopted an amendment to S. 
735 that would have allowed the Attorney General to request the 
technical and logistical assistance of the U.S. military in emergency 
situations involving biological and chemical weapons of mass 
destruction. Such authority already exists in the case of nuclear 
weapons. The amendment the Senate adopted merely extended that 
authority to include biological and chemical weapons.
  I believe this was an important amendment because the Armed Forces of 
this Nation have special capabilities in this area, with individuals 
who possess the training to counter biological or chemical weapons. The 
police departments of our country and the fire departments of our 
country are not equipped to deal with these emergencies. They simply do 
not have the expertise to handle a biological or chemical weapons 
attack. So the Senate adopted the provision, by unanimous consent I 
would note, that allows for the technical expertise of the military to 
be used should a terrorist attack occur in which biological or chemical 
weapons are used.
  But that provision, too, was dropped by the conference committee. 
Consequently, we have a bill that purports to prevent terrorism, but 
hamstrings Federal, State, and local authorities in any case involving 
biological or chemical weapons.
  The citizens of New York City, or of Los Angeles, or of any city in 
this Nation should not be forced to suffer a nuclear attack from a 
terrorist organization before they can expect help from the Federal 
Government. The American people should not be told, as this bill 
implicitly tells them, that an imminent attack with chemical weapons is 
not serious enough to warrant the use of the military. The American 
people should not have to experience, as did the citizens of Tokyo in 
March 1995, a gas attack in a subway system before their Congress is 
willing to act.
  Last, when S. 735 was passed by the Senate last year, it contained a 
provision that would have made it a Federal crime for any person to 
distribute material that teaches someone how to make a bomb if that 
person intends or knows that the bomb will be used to commit a crime. 
That provision, offered by Senator Feinstein, was included in the 
Senate bill by unanimous consent. Not one of our colleagues stood up 
and objected to it. But, like many of these preventive tools, the 
Feinstein amendment was dropped by the conference committee.
  It is simply absurd to expect this bill to negatively impact 
terrorists if the Congress is not even willing to prevent the 
distribution of what amounts to terrorist training manuals. How can

[[Page S4007]]

anyone say that this legislation--absent the Feinstein amendment--is a 
serious effort aimed at prevention? How do we intend to stop a future 
terrorist from blowing up a Federal building if we will not even take 
away his instruction manual?
  Mr. President, the provisions that I have highlighted here are just 
some of the provisions that I believe made S. 735, the Comprehensive 
Terrorism Prevention Act, a good, tough, worthwhile bill. But as I have 
noted, each of those was dropped from the final product. As such, we 
have been left with a measure that, in many ways, is simply untrue to 
its title. No longer, in my opinion, is this bill comprehensive, or 
directed at prevention. Accordingly, I was compelled to vote against 
the conference report.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Iowa we are 
in morning business with Senators allowed to speak up to 5 minutes 
each.

                          ____________________