[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 17 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Pages 719-721]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Signing the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 
of 1996

April 24, 1996

    I have today signed into law S. 735, the ``Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.'' This legislation is an important 
step forward in the Federal Government's continuing efforts to combat 
terrorism.
    I first transmitted antiterrorism legislation to the Congress in 
February 1995. Most of the proposals in that legislation, the ``Omnibus 
Counterterrorism Act of 1995,'' were aimed at fighting international 
terrorism. After the tragedy in Oklahoma City, I asked Federal law 
enforcement agencies to reassess their needs and determine which tools 
would help them meet the new challenge of domestic terrorism. They 
produced, and I transmitted to the Congress, the ``Antiterrorism 
Amendments Act of 1995'' in May 1995.
    Together, these two proposals took a comprehensive approach to 
fighting terrorism both at home and abroad. I am pleased that the 
Congress included most of the provisions of these proposals in this 
legislation. As a result, our law enforcement officials will have tough 
new tools to stop terrorists before they

[[Page 720]]

strike and to bring them to justice if they do. In particular, this 
legislation will:
    --provide broad new Federal jurisdiction to prosecute anyone who 
      commits a terrorist attack in the United States or who uses the 
      United States as a planning ground for attacks overseas;
    --ban fundraising in the United States that supports terrorist 
      organizations;
    --allow U.S. officials to deport terrorists from American soil 
      without being compelled by the terrorists to divulge classified 
      information, and to bar terrorists from entering the United States 
      in the first place;
    --require plastic explosives to contain chemical markers so that 
      criminals who use them--like the ones that blew up Pan Am Flight 
      103--can be tracked down and prosecuted;
    --enable the Government to issue regulations requiring that chemical 
      taggants be added to some other types of explosives so that police 
      can better trace bombs to the criminals who make them;
    --increase our controls over biological and chemical weapons;
    --toughen penalties over a range of terrorist crimes;
    --ban the sale of defense goods and services to countries that I 
      determine are not ``cooperating fully'' with U.S. antiterrorism 
      efforts. Such a determination will require a review of a country's 
      overall level of cooperation in our efforts to fight terrorism, 
      taking into account our counterterrorism objectives with that 
      country and a realistic assessment of its capabilities.
    By enacting this legislation, the United States remains in the 
forefront of the international effort to fight terrorism through tougher 
laws and resolute enforcement.
    Nevertheless, as strong as this bill is, it should have been 
stronger. For example, I asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement 
increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases, including the power to 
seek multi-point wiretaps, enabling police to follow a suspected 
terrorist from phone to phone, and authority for the kind of emergency 
wiretaps available in organized crime cases. But the Congress refused.
    After I proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the 
inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be 
traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and 
smokeless powder--two of the most commonly used substances in improvised 
explosive devices.
    I asked that law enforcement be given increased access to hotel, 
phone and other records in terrorism cases. I asked for a mandatory 
penalty for those who knowingly transfer a firearm for use in a violent 
felony. I asked for a longer statute of limitations to allow law 
enforcement more time to prosecute terrorists who use weapons such as 
machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and explosive devices. But the 
Congress stripped each of these provisions out of the bill. And when I 
asked for a ban on cop-killer bullets, the Congress delivered only a 
study, which will delay real action to protect our Nation's police 
officers.
    I intend to keep urging the Congress to give our law enforcement 
officials all the tools they need and deserve to carry on the fight 
against international and domestic terrorism. This is no time to give 
the criminals a break.
    There are three other portions of this bill that warrant comment. 
First, I have long sought to streamline Federal appeals for convicted 
criminals sentenced to the death penalty. For too long, and in too many 
cases, endless death row appeals have stood in the way of justice being 
served. Some have expressed the concern that two provisions of this 
important bill could be interpreted in a manner that would undercut 
meaningful Federal habeas corpus review. I have signed this bill because 
I am confident that the Federal courts will interpret these provisions 
to preserve independent review of Federal legal claims and the bedrock 
constitutional principle of an independent judiciary.
    Section 104(3) provides that a Federal district court may not issue 
a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim adjudicated on the 
merits in State court unless the decision reached was contrary to, or 
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal 
law, as determined by the Supreme Court. Some have suggested that this 
provision will limit the authority of the Federal

[[Page 721]]

courts to bring their own independent judgment to bear on questions of 
law and mixed questions of law and fact that come before them on habeas 
corpus.
    In the great 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John 
Marshall explained for the Supreme Court that ``[i]t is emphatically the 
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' 
Section 104(3) would be subject to serious constitutional challenge if 
it were read to preclude the Federal courts from making an independent 
determination about ``what the law is'' in cases within their 
jurisdiction. I expect that the courts, following their usual practice 
of construing ambiguous statutes to avoid constitutional problems, will 
read section 104 to permit independent Federal court review of 
constitutional claims based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 
Constitution and Federal laws.
    Section 104(4) limits evidentiary hearings in Federal habeas corpus 
cases when ``the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a 
claim in State court proceedings.'' If this provision were read to deny 
litigants a meaningful opportunity to prove the facts necessary to 
vindicate Federal rights, it would raise serious constitutional 
questions. I do not read it that way. The provision applies to 
situations in which ``the applicant has failed to develop the factual 
basis'' of his or her claim. Therefore, section 104(4) is not triggered 
when some factor that is not fairly attributable to the applicant 
prevented evidence from being developed in State court.
    Preserving the Federal courts' authority to hear evidence and decide 
questions of law has implications that go far beyond the issue of 
prisoners' rights. Our constitutional ideal of a limited government that 
must respect individual freedom has been a practical reality because 
independent Federal courts have the power ``to say what the law is'' and 
to apply the law to the cases before them. I have signed this bill on 
the understanding that the courts can and will interpret these 
provisions of section 104 in accordance with this ideal.
    This bill also makes a number of major, ill-advised changes in our 
immigration laws having nothing to do with fighting terrorism. These 
provisions eliminate most remedial relief for long-term legal residents 
and restrict a key protection for battered spouses and children. The 
provisions will produce extraordinary administrative burdens on the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Administration will urge the 
Congress to correct them in the pending immigration reform legislation.
    I also regret that the Congress included in this legislation a 
commission to study Federal law enforcement that was inspired by special 
interests who are no friends of our Nation's law enforcement officers. 
The Congress has responsibility to oversee the operation of Federal law 
enforcement; to cede this power to an unelected and unaccountable 
commission is a mistake. Our Nation's resources would be better spent 
supporting the men and women in law enforcement, not creating a 
commission that will only get in their way.
    I hope that there will be an opportunity to revisit these and other 
issues, as well as some of the other proposals this Administration has 
made, but upon which the Congress refused to act.
    This legislation is a real step in the right direction. Although it 
does not contain everything we need to combat terrorism, it provides 
valuable tools for stopping and punishing terrorists. It stands as a 
tribute to the victims of terrorism and to the men and women in law 
enforcement who dedicate their lives to protecting all of us from the 
scourge of terrorist activity.
                                            William J. Clinton
The White House,
April 24, 1996.

Note: S. 735, approved April 24, was assigned Public Law No. 104-132.