[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this is to express my deep concern over a 
decision President Clinton made last year concerning the Anti-Terrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but it has only recently come 
to light.
  When President Clinton signed the antiterrorism bill into law on 
April 24 of last year he made a promise to the American people--a 
promise never to give in to terrorism or to terrorist forces. The 
President vowed to stand firm against nations that support terrorism 
and use violence and bloodshed for political ends. The President was 
right in his resolve.
  As the world's only superpower, the United States must set an example 
for all nations. We must not allow the cowards responsibility for such 
atrocities as the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, the bombing of the 
World Trade Center, or the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal 
building to gain from their actions.
  That is why Congress included strict provisions in the Anti-Terrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 to isolate terrorist 
organizations and those who support them. Section 321 of the law 
prohibits U.S. businesses from engaging in any type of financial 
transactions with countries known to support international terrorism. 
This is an important weapon in our arsenal against terrorism that must 
be rigorously enforced.
  Doing business with state sponsors of terrorism provides such rogue 
nations with links to the outside world and means for financing their 
ugly agenda. Any such financial transaction may well return in the form 
of violence against the American people, our allies or other innocent 
victims.
  President Clinton purported to support this policy. In his address to 
the Nation on signing the antiterrorism bill, the President announced 
that America must resolve ``to hold fast against the forces of violence 
and division * * * guard against them, speak against them and fight 
against them.'' Unfortunately, the President has not lived up to his 
own words.
  As reported in the Washington Post last week, only 4 months after 
signing the antiterrorism bill, President Clinton made a special 
exemption in the law for Sudan, one of the seven nations classified by 
the Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism. The exemption 
was made specifically to allow California-based Occidental Petroleum 
Corporation to negotiate with the Sudanese Government for a stake in a 
$930 million oil deal. The President made this decision despite the 
State Department's finding that Sudan is second only to Iran in its 
sponsorship of Islamic extremists engaged in terrorism against United 
States allies in the Middle East and against the United States itself.
  Mr. President, I find these actions on the part of the President 
unconscionable, and I trust that most of my colleagues agree. This, 
unfortunately, is only the latest example of the flip-flopping on 
American foreign policy that marked the first term of President 
Clinton. Yet this particular change of heart may well be the most 
dangerous. The United States and our allies have known for decades that 
if we give terrorists an inch, they will take a mile. The more 
concessions we make, the more power we give to the forces of evil. It 
appears to me that our Commander in Chief engaged in the very practice 
he condemned in April.
  The American people should not stand for such deception. President 
Clinton has an obligation to every American ever hurt by terrorism and 
every American who may be threatened by terrorism in the future to do 
what he said he would--stand firm. I truly hope the President will do 
just that and reverse his exemption of Sudan from the list of nations 
barred from doing business with American firms.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 208 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 
210 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________