[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Page 19758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators allowed to 
speak therein for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                               TERRORISM

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 5 years ago I stood here and called upon 
the Senate to join the fight against terrorism. Back then terrorism 
seemed like something that happened far away, in distant lands over 
distant conflicts. Well, that has all changed.
  Terrorism has come to America.
  We have to be a little proactive now. Back then, I proposed a series 
of precise antiterrorism tools to help law enforcement catch terrorists 
before they commit their deadly acts, not ever imagining the events of 
September 11.
  In particular, I said that it simply did not make sense that many of 
our law enforcement tools were not available for terrorism cases.
  For example, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, 
but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it 
bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the Mob should be good for 
terrorists!
  Anyway, some of my proposals were enacted into law, a number were 
not.
  There were those who decided that the threat to Americans was 
apparently not serious enough to give the President all the changes in 
the law he requested.
  Today, five years later, I again call on my colleagues to provide law 
enforcement with a number of the tools which they declined to do back 
then. The anti-terrorism bill we passed judgment on Thursday, S. 1510, 
is measured and prudent. It takes a number of important steps in waging 
an effective war on terrorism.
  It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these 
terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are 
identical or near-identical to those I previously proposed.
  For example: it allows the FBI to get wiretaps to investigate 
terrorists, just like they do for the Mafia or drug kingpins; it allows 
the FBI to get a ``roving wiretap'' to investigate terrorists--so they 
can follow a particular suspect, regardless of how many different forms 
of communication that person uses; it allows terrorists to be charged 
with federal ``racketeering offenses''--serious criminal charges 
available against organizations which engage in criminal conduct as a 
group--for their crimes; it includes a provision similar to legislation 
I introduced last Congress, S. 3202, to prohibit terrorists, and 
others, from possessing biological materials when that person does not 
have any lawful reason for having them. Right now, it's only illegal if 
you intend to use such materials as a weapon, the FBI tells me that 
that is simply too difficult a burden for them to prove in many cases, 
and that the new offense we create in this bill will be helpful in 
prosecuting terrorists who possess dangerous biological agents; it 
incorporates the language of S. 899, legislation Senator Hatch and I 
introduced earlier this year to raise the payment to families of public 
safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty from 
$100,000 to $250,000.
  Let's be clear. This bill is a step in the right direction. Some will 
say that it doesn't go far enough.
  I have to say, I was disappointed that the Administration dropped 
some proposals from an early draft of its bill, measures which I called 
for five years ago. Those antiterrorism measures are NOT in the bill, 
but I continue to believe that they're common-sense tools which law 
enforcement should have.
  We should be extending 48 hour ``emergency'' wiretaps and ``pen 
registers,'' ``caller-ID''-type devices to track incoming and outgoing 
phone calls from suspects, to terrorism crimes. This would allow 
police, in an emergency situation, to obtain immediately surveillance 
means against a terrorist, provided the police go to a judge within 48 
hours and prove that they had the right to get the wiretap and that the 
emergency circumstances prevented them from going to the judge in the 
first place. Right now, these emergency means are available only for 
organized crime cases.
  We should be extending the Supreme Court's ``good faith'' exception 
to wiretaps. This well-accepted doctrine prevents criminals in other 
types of offenses from going free when the police make an honest 
mistake in seizing evidence or statements from a suspect. We should 
apply this ``good faith'' exception to terrorist crimes as well, to 
prevent terrorists from getting away when the police make an honest 
mistake in obtaining a wiretap.
  I'm also pleased that Chairman Leahy and the administration were able 
to reach consensus on the two areas which gave me some pause in the 
administration's original proposal: those provisions dealing with 
mandatory detention of illegal aliens and with greater information 
sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
  Overall, the agreement Chairman Leahy reached has satisfied me that 
these new law enforcement powers will not upset the balance between 
effective law enforcement and the civil liberties we all value.
  This bill is not perfect. No one here claims it has all the answers. 
This fight may be lengthy. But I am confident that by treating 
terrorism as seriously as we do the Mob, that we are taking a step in 
the right direction.

                          ____________________