[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5735-S5736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1997, ASHCROFT 
                        ANTITERRORIST PROVISION

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the African nation of Sudan is a cradle 
and safe haven for the world's most vicious and violent terrorists. It 
is a country internationally renowned as a training base for terrorist 
groups.
  The Armed Islamic Group, Hamas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, 
Hezbollah, and the Islamic Group, all practice car bombing and hostage 
taking on the sands of Sudan's deserts.
  Sudan also harbors and protects elements of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's 
Jihad network, the terrorist organization that was involved in the 
bombing of the World Trade Center.
  Furthermore, Sudanese diplomats at the United Nations conspired with 
Jihad terrorists to bomb the U.N. complex. Sudan also reportedly 
provided false papers and weapons for assassins who attacked Egyptian 
President Hosni Mubarak.
  There is no doubt that Sudan is a state sponsor of terrorism, and the 
State Department is right to classify it as such.
  Along with this classification, the State Department should also 
enforce strict sanctions on financial transactions with Sudan, as it 
does with other officially recognized state sponsors of terrorism. 
Unfortunately, the State Department has taken steps to relax sanctions 
on financial transactions with Sudan. Congress passed legislation last 
year, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, designed to 
prohibit all U.S. financial transactions with governments that support 
international terrorism.
  Unfortunately, the manner in which the State Department implemented 
the law exempted at least two terrorist states, Sudan and Syria, from 
this ban. The State Department reads this seemingly clear legislation 
to prohibit only the financial transactions which might further 
terrorism in the United States. Transactions which furthered terrorism 
outside of the United States would be perfectly legal.
  The bureaucrats at the State Department evidently believe that 
transactions which further terrorism against citizens of foreign 
countries or terrorism against Americans abroad--such as the Pan Am 103 
flight which exploded over Scotland killing 270 people--should not be 
prohibited
  In our debate over foreign policy and foreign affairs reform, we need 
to clearly define a consistent antiterrorism policy. The United States 
should not allow financial transactions with state sponsors of 
terrorism, regardless of whether those financial transactions enhance 
terrorism in the United States or abroad.
  Congress clearly intended to outlaw all financial transactions with 
these rogue nations. Yet for reasons that have never been clearly 
explained, the administration has chosen to allow U.S. companies to 
continue to do business with regimes that are intent on killing 
Americans and terrorizing people around the globe.
  For example, only mounting public concern and increasing 
congressional pressure prevented this administration from allowing an 
American petroleum company to participate in a $930 million oil deal 
with the Sudanese Government. This oil deal would have provided 
hundreds of millions of dollars to this state sponsor of terrorism, 
money which could easily have funded attacks on U.S. citizens.
  The State Department's implementation of last year's antiterrorism 
law leaves a loophole large enough to drive a truck bomb through, a 
truck bomb similar to the one that killed 19 American military 
personnel and injured approximately 500 more in Saudi Arabia last year.
  One would expect the State Department to use every tool available to 
them to curtail and smother terrorism, especially since lives are at 
stake. The terrorist groups that operate out of Sudan are responsible 
for hundreds of attacks around the world and the deaths of thousands of 
people, and yet our State Department refuses to use the full scope of 
the law to aggressively isolate this criminal regime.

  Abu Nidal alone has been responsible for 90 terrorist attacks in 20 
countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. As I mentioned 
earlier, this terrorist organization uses Sudan as a base of 
operations.
  I have introduced legislation, Senate bill 873, to close the 
administration's loophole allowing most financial transactions with 
terrorist states to proceed. This legislation has been included in 
section 1605 of the foreign affairs reform bill we are debating today 
and specifically prohibits all U.S. financial transactions with regimes 
classified as state sponsors of terrorism, regardless of whether or not 
the terrorist attack might occur in the United States or abroad.
  There are some exceptions in the provision which allow certain 
financial transactions to proceed: transactions for humanitarian 
assistance; traveling journalists; and a national security waiver for 
classes of financial transactions that are vital to the security 
interests of the United States.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is unfortunately the second time the 
Senate has had to consider legislation to prohibit financial 
transactions with state sponsors of terrorism. If the Clinton 
administration had chosen to implement this law correctly the first 
time, all transactions between U.S. citizens and state sponsors of 
terrorism would already be illegal.
  International terrorism is going to be a topic of discussion at the 
upcoming G-7 summit this weekend in Denver. The financial resources 
available to international terrorists will be one area of discussion 
for G-7 leaders. President Clinton will probably speak very forcibly on 
this issue. I sincerely hope that he will also direct the State 
Department to implement the provisions in this legislation which 
undermine the financial resources of terrorist states. I hope the 
President interprets this legislation in accordance with congressional 
intent and limits the ability of American firms to provide financial 
resources to state sponsors of terrorism.
  State sponsors of terrorism provide critical refuge and support to 
nefarious

[[Page S5736]]

organizations committed to killing Americans and citizens of other 
countries. Business as usual should not proceed with such regimes, and 
President Clinton should not have to be coaxed into aggressively 
enforcing U.S. antiterrorism laws to isolate these countries. This 
provision will diminish the financial resources available to terrorist 
states for their campaign of violence and hatred, and I urge the 
President's firm support for this anti-terrorism weapon contained in 
the foreign affairs reform legislation before the Senate today.
  I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of any time I might have.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________