[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 1, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 55, making corrections to the Terrorism 
Prevention Act and adopted on April 24, 1996, under a unanimous-consent 
agreement, made a number of substantive changes to sections in the 
jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee. I am very 
supportive of the goals of the Terrorism Prevention Act and am 
concerned that several of these changes may actually undermine U.S. 
efforts to address the terrorism threat.
  I am astounded that these changes were made at the last hour, without 
even a single call to the minority members of the International 
Relations Committee. The issues involved are troubling and far-
reaching--not technical. They require a full airing by the committee of 
jurisdiction to understand all the ramifications for U.S. security and 
foreign policy concerns. Had I had warning, I would have objected to 
the inclusion of these provisions in a bill to be considered in the 
House under a unanimous-consent agreement.
  First is the change to Section 801, Overseas Law Enforcement Training 
Activities. In the conference report, this section authorized the 
Departments of Justice and Treasury to conduct overseas law enforcement 
training activities ``subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of 
State.'' This language, requested by the administration, was necessary 
to ensure coordinated, targeted, and cost-effective overseas law 
enforcement assistance. The new language permits the Departments of 
Justice and Treasury to go overseas ``in consultation with the 
Secretary of State.'' This undermines the Secretary's statutory 
authority to conduct U.S. foreign policy and raises the likelihood of 
an explosion of uncoordinated training programs.
  I support the Justice and Treasury Departments' law enforcement 
activities, including their overseas efforts to reinforce the 
protection of law enforcement in the United States. But we need 
coordination of overseas training if those programs are to be 
effective. The State Department, which has the global perspective on 
U.S. foreign policy, is the only agency with the ability and authority 
to coordinate U.S. civilian activities abroad.
  Next are the changes to sections 325 and 326, which amend the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961. The conference report's section 325 stated the 
President may withhold foreign assistance from any country, whose 
government aids the government of a terrorist State. The report's 
section 326 provided that the President may do the same with regard to 
governments providing lethal military equipment to terrorist states. 
The concurrent resolution turned ``may'' into a ``shall,'' tying the 
President's hands. The provisions retain a national interest waiver. 
But, they will complicate and obstruct the President's ability to 
conduct foreign policy.
  We should press other countries to oppose terrorist governments. But 
we must find creative ways to fight terrorism, not tie the President's 
hands in making case-by-case judgments in this very important, but 
highly fluid, area. What does it mean that a third country provides 
assistance to a terrorist state? Is the President now required to cut 
assistance to our allies participating in the KEDO program? That 
program ensures that North Korea does not engage in a nuclear weapons 
program, and it may be undermined by this new prohibition. Does section 
326 now prohibit our assistance to Russia and other emerging 
democracies in Europe, or our assistance to some of our most important 
allies? These are the questions we should have fully examined in open 
and closed sessions before the prohibitions on the President's 
authority became law.
  I conclude by repeating my distress at the process in which these 
important statutory and policy changes were made. The changes have far 
reaching troubling ramifications, and should not have been done under 
unanimous consent without consultation of the appropriate committees of 
the House.

                          ____________________