---

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. Dole: Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute amendment to S. 735, the anti-terrorism bill.

Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch, John Ashcroft, Slade Gorton, Craig Thomas, Strom Thurmond, Spencer Abraham, Alfonse D'Amato, Trent Lott, Larry E. Craig, Dan Coats, Rick Santorum, Bob Smith, Don Nickles, Rod Grams, R.F. Bennett.

Mr. Dole: Mr. President, let me indicate I will be speaking with the Democratic leader to see if we cannot have a vote on this tomorrow. I did not file the motion on the Friday before we went out because I thought at that point there would be a lot of progress made during the recess. I am not certain what progress has been made, but this is just the final attempt on the part of the majority leader to try to pass this bill.

We will find out how many people really want to pass the antiterrorism bill when it comes to a cloture vote. There will be other bills this year to offer amendments on. This is not the last train to come through the Senate. I hope we can pass a good bill, and I hope the House follows suit very quickly and that we get it to the President in the next week or so.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I have just come from a press conference where a significant number of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing appeared. It was a very moving experience for me to hear these people talk about their loved ones who were killed in the bombing and to meet some of them who were actually maimed and harmed during the bombing.

At that particular press conference were Diane Leonard, whose husband, Don, a Secret Service agent was killed in the bombing; Glenn Seidl, who lost his wife, Kathy; Kay Ice, who lost a brother, Paul, a Customs agent; Mike Reyes, who lost his father and was injured himself; Jason Smith, who lost his mother, Linda McKinney; Dan McKinney, Linda's husband; Gary Bland, who lost his wife, Shelly; Suzanne Britten, who lost her fiance, Richard Allen; Earl Adams, who lost a nephew, Scott Williams; Alice Maroney Dennison, who lost her father, who gave me this ribbon and pinned it on me personally, representing the tragedy, or I should say tragedies that occurred in the Oklahoma City bombing.

I very proudly will wear this ribbon and will keep it after this debate, as well. And I want to thank Alice Maroney Dennison for thinking of me and being kind enough to give me these ribbons, representing various aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Beverly Rankin was also a survivor who lost many friends in the bombing.

Mr. and Mrs. Lee Chancellor were there, as well, and of course he is a strong force in one of the national organizations trying to get some finality in the habeas corpus laws.

I have to say I was very impressed by these victims of this bombing. They stood there and told their stories and begged the U.S. Senate and the Congress as a whole to get this bill through and to keep the true habeas corpus provisions in the bill as they are currently written.

The habeas corpus provisions of this bill happen to be the only part of the bill and really, the only thing we can do, to make up to those who have lost family members and those who have been hurt and maimed, as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. It is the one reform Congress can pass which will affect this case.

It is the one thing we can do something about. We can stop these incessant, frivolous appeals, that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars--billions over the extended period of time--in frivolous litigation, that keeps these people alive for 5, 10, usually an average of almost 10 years, sometimes as long as 18 to 20 years. Some of them die in prison before the final judgments are carried out.

The reason that the far left in this country is fighting habeas corpus reform is because they hate the death penalty. They feel they cannot win the battle over public opinion so they have adopted a strategy to make death penalty litigation so costly and so protracted that capital punishment is eliminated de facto. Now, I have to admit that I believe the death penalty is proper, but I hate it, too. I wish we never had to use it. I wish there would be no heinous murderers in our society. But there are occasions where it is appropriate and just. It is a deterrent, as much as the opponents of the death penalty argue against it.

However, I would suggest that instead of throwing up frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal and allowing this system to distort and disrupt our society and putting these victims and their families through frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal, I would suggest that if they hate the death penalty, argue the issue straight up, argue against the death penalty. Make their philosophical points. Fight it throughout society if they want to, but do not make a mockery of justice by keeping a system alive that literally is thwarting justice.

The fact of the matter is some have argued that habeas reform applied to the State is not germane to this debate. These individuals, including my distinguished colleague and friend from Delaware, contend that a reform of the political overview of State convictions is meaningless in the context of the debate we are having. They are willing to admit that some revision of the collateral review may be in order, but they contend that reform of Federal collateral review of cases tried in State court is unnecessary. This position is simply incorrect.

I would like to read from a letter written by Robert H. Macy, district attorney of Oklahoma City, and a Democrat. By the way, at this meeting today, representatives from the attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, a Democrat, were there, and one came up to me afterwards-- Richard Winnery--and said, "Thank you for what you are doing." Drew Edmondson has been one of our strongest supporters as a Democrat of habeas corpus reform, and there are a number of other Democrat attorney generals, and I might say many prosecutors who are Democrats throughout the country, who agree with what we are doing here.

Robert H. Macy, as district attorney of Oklahoma City and a Democrat, said:

Immediately following the trial or trials in Federal court, I shall, working in cooperation with the United States Department of Justice and the Federal law enforcement agencies investigating the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, prosecute in Oklahoma State court the cowards responsible for murdering innocent people in the areas surrounding the Federal building. And I shall seek the death penalty. We must never forget that this bombing took several lives and injured dozens of persons in the neighborhoods and businesses near the building. The State of Oklahoma has an overwhelming, compelling interest to seek and obtain the maximum penalty allowable by law for the senseless and cowardly killings.

That is a statement of Robert H. Macy, the district attorney for Oklahoma City, a Democrat.

In our reaction to the destruction of the Federal buildings in Oklahoma City, we may overlook the fact that the bomb also caused the death of people not inside the building at the time, that were not inside the building itself, or even on Federal property. The State of Oklahoma, not the Federal Government, will thus prosecute those responsible for the bombing that killed people outside of the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

In those instances, Federal jurisdiction may not obtain and it will thus be necessary to prosecute the killers under State law, as well as Federal, court.

A failure to enact a complete, meaningful, reform of habeas corpus proceedings may enable the individuals in this case, provided they are apprehended and duly convicted, to frustrate the demands of justice. The blood of the innocent men and women are on the hands of the evil cowards who committed this terrible tragedy. Justice must be, as President Clinton declared, "swift, certain, and severe."

Moreover, failure to enact meaningful, comprehensive, habeas reform will permit other killers who have terrorized their communities to continue to frustrate our judicial system in this country. If we adopt this view, we will create a schism between State and Federal capital law. In other words, murderers tried in Federal court will face imposition of their final penalty more swiftly than persons tried for capital crimes in State courts--that is, if we adopt the amendments that apparently are going to be put forth by the ranking minority member on this committee. So, in other words, if we adopt any amendment that changes the habeas corpus reform bill within this bill that would provide that it applies only to Federal courts, that will create a schism between State and Federal capital law.

Murderers tried in Federal court will face imposition of their final penalty more swiftly than persons tried for capital crimes in State cases. Why should we adopt such a piecemeal approach to reform, one that will leave such a gap between State and Federal cases? It simply makes no sense to reform habeas proceedings for cases tried in Federal court but leave the current disastrous system in place for cases tried in State court.

As of January 1, 1995, there were some 2,976 inmates on death row. Yet, only 38 prisoners were executed last year, and the States have executed only 263 criminals since 1973.

Yet, keep in mind, 2,976, almost 3,000, are sitting there on death row. Many more have died while in prison from natural causes, and some even from unnatural causes, while waiting for imposition of their penalty, because of frivolous habeas corpus appeals.

I might add, some of them have committed further murders while the delays have occurred, murders that would not have been committed had sentences been carried out.

Abuse of the habeas process features strongly in the extraordinary delay between the sentence and the carrying out of that sentence. In my home State of Utah, for example, convicted murderer William Andrews, with his partner, murdered a number of people in the hi-fi murder case, but only after they had tortured them by ramming pencils through their ears and pouring drain cleaner down their throats, destroying their vocal boxes and their esophageal areas.

There, the imposition of a constitutionally imposed death sentence for over 18 years. The State had to put up millions of dollars in precious criminal justice resources to litigate his meritless claims. His guilt was never in question. He was not an innocent person seeking freedom from an illegal punishment. Rather, he simply wanted to frustrate the imposition of punishment his heinous crimes warranted.

This abuse of habeas corpus litigation, particularly in those cases involving lawfully imposed death sentences, has taken a dreadful toll on victims' families, seriously eroded the public's confidence in our criminal justice system, and drained State criminal justice resources. This is simply not a just system.

Justice demands that lawfully imposed sentences be carried out. Justice demands that we now adopt meaningful habeas corpus reform. Justice demands that we not permit those who would perpetuate the current system to steer us from our course. We must do as the victims, families, and friends of those who have asked us to do: enact meaningful, comprehensive, habeas reform now.

Mr. President, the Senate is in session today debating the specific topic of habeas corpus reform, as well as other aspects of this antiterrorism bill. I have been devoting my time to habeas corpus reform because of, and in honor of, the witnesses, the victims, and the families of victims who appeared here today.

I notice the distinguished Senator from California is here. Does the Senator desire to take the floor and speak?

Mrs. Feinstein: In response to the Senator, I would like to send an amendment to the desk. I was going to do it at 11:30.

Mr. Hatch: That will be fine. I will hold off on any further comments on this until after the distinguished Senator has a chance to present her amendment, and I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 1202 to Amendment No. 1199

(Purpose: To amend the bill to authorize requirements for tagging of explosive materials and other purposes)

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], proposes an amendment (No. 1202) to amendment No. 1199.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 152, strike line 6 through line 17 on page 153, and insert the following:

SEC. ____. STUDY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAGGING OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS, AND STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RENDERING EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS INERT AND IMPOSING CONTROLS ON PRECURSORS OF EXPLOSIVES.

(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a study and make recommendations concerning--

(1) the tagging of explosive materials for purposes of detection and identification;

(2) whether common chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials can be rendered inert and whether it is feasible to require it; and

(3) whether controls can be imposed on certain precursor chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials and whether it is feasible to require it.

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with other Federal, State and local officials with expertise in this area and such other individuals as shall be deemed necessary. Such study shall be completed within twelve months after the enactment of this Act and shall be submitted to the Congress and made available to the public. Such study may include, if appropriate, recommendations for legislation.

(b) There are authorized to be appropriated for the study and recommendations contained in paragraph (a) such sums as may be necessary.

(c) Section 842, of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (k), a new subsection (l) which reads as follows:

"(l) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, ship, transport, receive, possess, transfer, or distribute any explosive material that does not contain a tracer element as prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to regulation, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the explosive material does not contain the required tracer element".

(d) Section 844, of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after "(a) through (i)" the phrase "and (l)".

(e) Section 846, of title 18, United States Code, is amended by designating the present section as "(a)" and by adding a new subsection (b) reading as follows: "(b) to facilitate the enforcement of this chapter the Secretary shall, within 18 months after the enactment of this Act, promulgate regulations for the addition of tracer elements to explosive materials manufactured in or imported into the United States. Tracer elements to be added to explosive materials under provisions of this subsection shall be of such character and in such quantity as the Secretary may authorize or require, and such as will not substantially impair the quality of the explosive materials for their intended lawful use, safety of these explosives, or have a substantially adverse effect on the environment.".

(f) The penalties provided herein, shall not take effect until ninety days after the date of promulgation of the regulations provided for herein.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today is an amendment to require the use of taggants. Now, what is a taggant? A taggant is a tiny, microscopic, color-coded plastic or ceramic piece which can be mixed with explosive materials to allow law enforcement agencies to trace a batch of explosives like we currently do with car serial numbers. In other words, it might be possible, therefore, to identify the place of purchase of these explosives and therefore to, quite possibly, trace the purchaser.

Why is this important? It is important because we have seen in this Nation a rising incidence of bombs. In my own State in the last few years, there have been about 500 bomb incidents. The Department of Justice tells us that about 80 percent of these result in an actual detonation. Consequently, there has been major loss of life from bombing incidents. I think this was brought home to every American by the incident in Oklahoma City.

It is a complicated amendment because it is actually two parts. First, it requires the Secretary of the Treasury to do a study within 12 months, and then within 18 months to implement the results of that study or put into place a system by which taggants can be included in across-the-counter explosives. The affected explosives would include dynamite, water gels, slurries, emulsions, and black powder.

Second, it would require a study on the use of diffusers in another body of agents used in explosives, and those are common chemicals such as the ammonium nitrate fertilizer that was used in the Oklahoma City bombing--common chemicals, these kinds of chemicals, as well as pool chemicals that can be utilized. This part of the amendment would only require a study, however, as to how these chemicals can be made inert or diffused or nonexplosive. The amendment also has language so that it will not impair the effectiveness, the safety, nor the environmental impact of the explosive materials which are covered.

This past Friday in Los Angeles, I met with members of the Los Angeles County bomb squad, the Orange County bomb squad, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms bombs experts, and FBI experts, and virtually everyone in the room supported the use of taggants as a possible viable law enforcement tool.

Taggants have been available for use in the United States and elsewhere for some 20 years but, frankly, special-interest groups have prevented their use. The current bill only provides that a study be done on the feasibility of using these taggants. There is no deadline. This means that 16 years of delay that has already taken place could be followed by another 16-year period of delay. My amendment includes two real deadlines. First, the report must be done in 12 months; and, second, after 18 months, the use of taggants would be required.

I think the potential effectiveness of taggants was highlighted by a study conducted in the late 1970's when ATF seeded a very small portion of explosives, 10,000 pounds, with taggants. Despite this relatively small sample, these taggants actually helped solve a bombing in Maryland. In other words, by seeding just 10,000 pounds of explosives with taggants, they actually got leads to one bombing which led to the conviction of the individual responsible.

If we had required taggants years before, we could have had crucial evidence in about 17 percent of the bombs cases that occurred between the years of 1987 and 1993. People will say taggants do not work or should not work. They will say they should not be included. But I will tell my colleagues that Switzerland for some time has incorporated taggants into explosives, and it has resulted in the conviction of many who have perpetrated bombings.

I should say that, although ammonium nitrate was used along with diesel fuel, the people I have spoken to also believe there had to have been another accelerator included in that explosive batch of materials, and that accelerator most probably could have been tagged with a taggant.

I believe the amendment before my colleagues is well thought out, Mr. President, and I believe it can and should be supported by both sides of this Chamber.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. And I also retain the remainder of my time.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Smith): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I would like to add my support of the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995, which is the bill before us.

For many years, it seemed to many Americans that the United States was immune to terrorism, that somehow it could not reach our shores. Perhaps it is because we are surrounded by oceans on the west and the east, by friendly neighbors to the north and to the south. We may have fooled ourselves into a false sense of security, somehow thinking that we live on an island and that no terrorist would reach us.

We were long ago disabused of any such notion about our safety abroad. The hijackings and hostage takings of the 1970's and 1980's taught all Americans that we could be the victims of foreign terrorists who were prepared to use violence to advance their causes. We have expended much time, effort and money to improve the safety of our airlines and our Embassies and to ensure the cooperation of other governments in combating terrorism. But for many, home seemed a refuge, a haven from the political violence that has plagued so many other parts of our world. But we can no longer comfort ourselves with such illusions--and illusions they are. What was once unthinkable here in America is today a reality. Terrorism can strike us here at home. It can strike with massive deadly force, and it poses a most fundamental threat to our freedoms--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So that is why we must act, and that is why we must take action on this bill today.

In the wake of Oklahoma City, there is a new imperative--a bipartisan consensus on the need for tough, comprehensive antiterrorism legislation that can move through the legislative process and become law quickly. So I would like to commend the distinguished majority and minority leaders, as well as the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Delaware, who are the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for acting expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor.

The purposes of the legislation are clear: To make it more difficult to carry out acts of terrorism, to toughen the penalties for committing or abetting acts of terrorism, and to strengthen the hands of our law enforcement authorities to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism.

Terrorists do not wait to get caught. It is our job to give our law enforcement agencies the authority and ability to seek out terrorists before they act. We must find them before they find us. It is that simple and that important.

I believe that terrorism, the ultimate act of cowardice, actually threatens our life, our way of life, and jeopardizes our most fundamental liberties. With all that at stake, it is important that we act today.

One of the most important sections of this bill, in my view, is a section that toughens restrictions on access to explosives, and increases the penalties for possessing stolen explosives, for transferring explosives with knowledge that they will be used to commit a crime, for conspiracies involving explosives, and for using explosives to commit a crime. These provisions are long overdue and well-considered. Oklahoma City taught us what the people of Beirut and London, Tel Aviv and Buenos Aires have known for far too long: Bombs kill. That is their sole purpose--to blow up buildings and kill people. We should be doing everything possible to make it harder for terrorists to get their hands on explosives.

I have a very personal interest in the issue of bombs. You see, Mr. President, I myself was the target of a terrorist bombing less than 20 years ago. An extremist group, the New World Liberation Front, tried to blow up my home, and failed only because the type of explosive they used does not detonate when the temperature drops below freezing and San Francisco experienced a rare frost that night. I was lucky, but so many others have not been.

The proliferation of bombmaking materials has reached astounding proportions. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, from 1983 to 1993 bombings in the United States more than tripled, from 910 to 2,980. The Department of Justice now puts out an annual Bomb Summary each year--who ever thought such a thing would be necessary?-- and in 1993 summary, we learn that the 2,980 bombing incidents, 541 of which were in California, caused 49 deaths and 1,323 injuries nationwide. Whether or not all of these bombing incidents can be classified as terrorist attacks, these appalling statistics clearly demonstrate the need to restrict access to bombmaking materials.

Indeed, Mr. President, the problem is not merely with bombmaking materials. In my opinion, there is altogether too much information too readily available on how to conduct terrorist attacks. Books and manuals, some of them posted on the Internet, teach everything one could want to know about picking locks, stealing chemicals, building bombs--all the skills you need to be a successful terrorist. Later, I intend to offer an amendment that will strengthen this legislation by making it a crime to teach or disseminate bombmaking information with knowledge that it will be used in a crime.

Mr. President, another extremely important section of this bill deals with the problem of aliens who are members of terrorist organizations. It should be clear, that the risks of allowing alien terrorists to work their way through ordinary deportation hearings, which are often lengthy and slow-moving, are unacceptable. Yet this is the case under current law. In terrorist cases, our law enforcement authorities must be granted expedited procedures for deportation.

I am pleased that the pending legislation provides for a special "terrorism court," composed of U.S. district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that would be able to deport expeditiously alien terrorists without risking the disclosure of national security information and techniques. In the rare cases where evidence against an alien is highly classified, a summary of the evidence will be provided to the alien. In addition, the pending legislation would make membership in a terrorist organization a sufficient basis for exclusion from the United States.

The point of this provision, is that when the Government has reliable information regarding terrorist activities of specific aliens, we cannot afford to wait until they commit crimes to deport them. The special court will hear evidence, and if it makes a compelling case that the alien is a member of a terrorist organization, the alien will be deported. I am confident that we can trust a panel of five Federal judges, appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, to fairly weigh the evidence disclosed. And importantly, there is provision to not fully disclose sensitive information that could lead to the deaths of Americans and others. Such disclosures should not be necessary just to deport someone dangerous.

Mr. President, one of the most serious problems we face is that international terrorist groups use the open environment of the United States to raise funds for their terrorist activities. The President has already delineated a list of organizations--such as Hamas and Hizbullah, and Jewish extremist groups like Kach and Kahane Chai--that raise funds in the United States for terrorist activities that undermine the Middle East peace process. The legislation before us will help put an end to that, by making it illegal to raise funds for any activity conducted by an organization deemed by the Secretary of State to be engaged in terrorist activities.

Some have raised the objection that certain groups, that may conduct terrorist operations, also run humanitarian or social service operations, like schools and clinics. But I simply do not accept that so-called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from their other operations. I think the money will ultimately go to bombs and bullets, rather than babies, or, because money is fungible, it will free up other funds to be used on terrorist activities.

Mr. President, we have all witnessed over the years the harm done to U.S. citizens and U.S. interests by international terrorism. The bombings of United States Embassies, the slaughter of 241 U.S. marines in Beirut, the hijacking of American airliners, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the holding of American hostages. All of these images are deeply imprinted on our national psyche.

These incidents, and the hundreds of others like them, aimed at Americans and non-Americans alike, pose one of the greatest threats today to international stability and security. Terrorism, as we have seen in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Hebron, can wreak havoc on the Middle East peace process. It undermines moderate regimes, such as Egypt, and exacerbates social tensions. It disrupts the lives of ordinary people, the flow of commerce, and the policies of affected governments.

The State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism report tells us that in 1994, there were 321 international terrorist attacks, over one- fifth of which were anti-U.S. attacks. And although this figure represents a 23-year low, it still means that there was an average of nearly one terrorist attack per day in 1994. All told, these attacks killed 314 people and left another 663 wounded.

In the face of this problem, the United States should demand, and has every right to expect, full cooperation from all friendly governments in the battle to combat international terrorism. Cooperation today is by and large quite good, although some nations are not as cooperative as we would like. The pending legislation would increase the incentive for other governments to cooperate in our antiterrorist efforts by prohibiting U.S. assistance to countries that provide aid or military equipment to terrorist states. The seven state sponsors of terrorism-- Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria--do not deserve such assistance until they can justifiably be removed from the list of state-sponsors.

The bill would also expand the type of assistance that we can provide our allies under the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program. With the expansion of such programs, and the increased incentive for other countries to cooperate with us, the United States can help forge even greater international consensus on combating terrorism.

But again, Mr. President, the primary lesson of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings is that from now on we face the possibility of a serious terrorist problem here at home. In addition to international terrorist groups that may set up cells in the United States, there is a growing danger of armed extremist groups of Americans, who hold antigovernment views, using violence to pursue their agenda. We have all heard the inflammatory statements of some members of militia and other right-wing extremist groups attacking religious or ethnic groups, predicting violent revolution against the Government, or slandering Federal law enforcement officers, who risk their lives to protect the very freedoms that allow the extremists to make their outrageous statements. But we have been warned. When heavily armed people with the ability to make bombs make threats, we ignore them at our peril.

For that reason, Mr. President, perhaps the most important provisions of this legislation are those that strengthen the ability of Federal law enforcement officers to monitor extremist and potential terrorist groups. These provisions grant Federal law enforcement agencies enhanced access to credit, telephone, financial, and certain commercial records in counterterrorism cases. It will no longer be required to have evidence of criminal activity, but it will allow officers to investigate groups whom they suspect may be engaging in criminal activity.

The effect of these changes in law will effectively be to untie the hands of our law enforcement officials. Currently our agents are unable to be proactive--they are only able to react to criminal activity, and launch an investigation of suspect individuals or groups after there is credible evidence of wrongdoing. These changes will allow our law enforcement officials to take steps to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. By investigating, monitoring, and infiltrating groups that may be involved in terrorism before a crime is committed, our agents can actually help prevent terrorist acts, and perhaps prevent the kind of horror we all witnessed last month.

Passive investigation by the FBI of any group with terrorist potential is absolutely necessary in this day and age. As FBI Director Louis Freeh testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier this month, we "can't afford" even one terrorist nuclear incident. Infiltration and court-ordered surveillance are critical to preventing that doomsday scenario from becoming a reality at some point in time. As long as the FBI and police do not encourage illegal conduct or otherwise entrap group members, we simply have to have the information that good surveillance--and only good surveillance--can provide.

I want very much to make a few comments on the habeas corpus provisions. I suspect that these provisions are often complicated, that they are not always well known. But I believe very strongly in the provisions of this bill. As President Clinton recently said--and I could not agree more--"swift punishment, including the death penalty, where appropriate, is critical in efforts to combat terrorism." I strongly believe that the death penalty can act as a deterrent to the most violent of crimes and is an appropriate punishment for those who knowingly take another life.

There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. But I remember well in the 1960's when I was sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree and I remember looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question: "Why was your gun unloaded?" She said to me: "So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty." That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.

But the deterrent impact of the death penalty is weakened when it cannot be imposed swiftly after a verdict has been reached in a fair trial. As the Senate Judiciary Committee heard at its hearing on habeas reform last March, the extraordinary delay in carrying out capital sentences is in effect a form of terrorism against the survivors of murder victims, traumatizing them year after year by preventing justice from being carried out.

Let no one doubt, Mr. President, that habeas reform should and must be an integral part of this legislation.

Indeed, I spoke a few days ago with Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, and a number of surviving family members of the men and women who lost their lives in Oklahoma City in that blast. It was a moving conversation and one that I will not forget. In sum, each of the survivors with whom I spoke, as well as the attorney general, urged the swift adoption of the habeas proposals in this legislation. Each conveyed to me that justice will not fully have been done until those responsible for the bombing have been tried, convicted, and the death penalty imposed and swiftly carried out.

As Alice Maroney Dennison, the daughter of Mickey B. Maroney, a special agent with the Secret Service, said to me: "I'm 27 years old and they took my father. I cannot be 47 when this man goes to death. That's not fair."

Mr. President, Alice Maroney Dennison's plea, and indeed the voices of all of the family members of Oklahoma City's victims, a number of whom just about a half-hour ago held a press conference in front of this Capitol, must be heard, and their loved ones must not have died in vain.

Mr. President, it is time for meaningful habeas corpus reform. This bill contains it. Let no one doubt that comprehensive reform is critical, and particularly in capital cases.

Much has been said about the case of Robert Alton Harris in California, a vicious murderer, and what he did when he was out of prison in San Diego. He went to a drive-in. He wanted to take a car. There were two 16-year-old boys in the car eating hamburgers. He took the car with the boys in it. He took the youngsters to a remote location. He killed one. The other dropped to his knees crying and begging for help, and he killed the second. Then he ate their hamburgers and went on to commit other robberies.

This man actually filed no fewer than 6 Federal habeas petitions and another 10 such petitions in State court before he was ultimately executed 14 years later for his crime. In all, Harris and his attorneys were able to engineer 14 years' delay of his capital sentence. It was 14 years of unresolved grief for the survivors of his victims.

In California today there are currently 410 convicted criminals on death row. On June 7, the longest serving member of California's death row population, Andrew E. Robertson, will mark the 17th year of his incarceration. He has managed to delay his capital sentence by filing habeas petitions for 17 years.

In California, since 1978, when the people of the State voted to put back into place the death penalty, 18 prisoners on death row have died of natural causes or committed suicide. Only 2 have been executed. Only 2 have had their sentence carried out, while 18 have either committed suicide or died of natural causes, all of them delaying their sentence.

Another case deserves attention as well. Clarence Ray Allen committed murder in 1974. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1977. From within prison he ordered the murder of the witnesses to the first murder. In September 1980, his assassin shotgunned to death three people and gravely wounded a fourth.

Six years later, the California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death penalty. During the next 2 years, it considered and denied a State habeas corpus petition in which a prison inmate is permitted to attack his sentence on factors outside the appellate record.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined review. On September 2, 1988, a Federal district judge issued a stay of execution. Over 6 years later that stay remains in effect, and the case is still mired in the district court. Unfortunately, this is a typical case. This points out a need for the habeas corpus reform in the bill before the Senate today.

In fact, according to Attorney General Dan Lungren's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March of this year, there are "currently 410 inmates on death row in California. We have had 2 executions occur since 1992, the only 2 in the last 27 years. The number of capital cases pending on Federal habeas corpus has more than doubled since 1991," when he first testified here on this issue.

In 4 years, the number of Federal habeas corpus cases on death row in California has doubled. Mr. President, since the death penalty was reinstated in California, as I said, many more prisoners on death row have died of natural causes and suicide than of a carrying out of their sentence.

This problem is not unique to California. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, during the year ending September 30, 1994, there were 11,918 prisoner petitions for habeas corpus review in the U.S. district courts alone. That is the reason habeas corpus reform has been a high priority of the Judiciary Committee. We should do it right and not merely pass a bill labeled with the term "habeas reform" for the sake of passing legislation.

That is why all 58 California district attorneys opposed the habeas provisions included in Senate bill 1607, the crime bill as originally introduced in 1993, and legislation introduced that year, Senate bill 1657.

I am very pleased to say that the habeas provisions included in the bill currently under consideration by the Senate are identical to those included in the Habeas Corpus Reform Act, Senate bill 623, legislation strongly supported by the attorneys general of California and Oklahoma and which, I believe, strikes an appropriate balance between the need to assure due process of those both convicted in capital and noncapital crimes and the need of any rational judicial system to bring cases to closure.

Most importantly, Mr. President, this bill provides habeas petitioners with one bite of the apple. It assures that no one convicted of a capital crime will be barred from seeking habeas relief in Federal court. In my view, it appropriately limits second and subsequent habeas appeals to narrow and appropriate circumstances.

Furthermore, the bill requires States which provide for counsel that habeas appeals must be filed within 6 months of when a State prisoner's conviction becomes final, or in States where standard for the adequacy of counsel are not adopted, such appeals must be filed within 1 year. So there is an incentive that if there is an adequacy of counsel standard in your State, there is 1 year from which the habeas petition must be filed.

Time limits are also imposed upon courts. The bill requires that Federal courts must act promptly on habeas appeals and establishes a mechanism by which courts of appeals will screen habeas petitions before they are permitted to go to a Federal district court for resolution.

Finally, unlike the crime bill proposals that I and the Nation's law enforcement officials opposed 2 years ago, the bill does not dictate to the States precisely what counsel competency standards are adopted, but rather it properly provides States with an incentive to formulate their own plans by making expedited timetables I have just described available for States to do so.

I believe there are two things that are an effective deterrent to crime. One of them is the speed of the trial. The other is the certainty of punishment. The habeas corpus reforms in this bill will make much more certain the certainty of punishment. I am very pleased to support them. I am very pleased to give my commendation to the committee chairman, the Senator from Utah, and to support this bill.

I think this is an important moment for our country and for this Congress. We have an opportunity to take bold action which will go a long way toward increasing the security of our citizens. This comprehensive package of antiterrorist legislation is an important step also in the recovery for the people of Oklahoma City, the people of the State of Oklahoma, and the people of the United States. For while the wounds of that day will never fully heal, today we begin to act to help prevent future sorrows and to help the American people be reassured that their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will not be threatened by the menace of terrorism, whether from foreign shores or our own.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California for her cogent remarks on habeas corpus reform. She is one of the leaders in this body in trying to reform these laws, and I want to personally compliment her for them.

I appreciate the support that she is bringing to this debate. It means a lot to me personally, as one who has fought for years to try to get the habeas corpus bill through. This is the time when I think we have to stand up and do it. I thank her and I appreciate the leadership she has provided.

Presently, there are 100 amendments, under our unanimous consent agreement, to this bill. Mr. President, 68 of these amendments are Democrat amendments and 32 amendments are Republican. Most of the Republican amendments, I believe, will not be offered. So it is really coming down to the 68 amendments that our friends on the other side have.

We have the Feinstein taggant amendment pending, but I want to urge my Democrat colleagues to come to the floor and offer their amendments. We will stack them for votes beginning at 6 o'clock tonight. I believe we also can dispense with several GOP amendments, including the two Pressler amendments, the Smith amendment, a Brown amendment, and perhaps an Abraham amendment today, if we can. I would like to do that.

Having said that, I would like to spend a few minutes chatting about the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California which is currently pending.

I have to rise in opposition to that amendment, but I first want to emphasize that the bill under consideration, S. 735, already contains a requirement for a study of the feasibility of "tagging" all explosives for tracing purposes.

Trace tagging, unlike "identification" taggants, are actual chips mixed in with the explosive. This is certainly an area that merits further serious study. We have authorized, in the bill, the Departments of Treasury and Justice to undertake exactly such a study.

Our bill also includes a provision which requires plastic explosives to be tagged with a detectable agent, thus helping to ensure that these devises can be detected before they are used in sabotage.

A detection taggant is a chemical odorant added to the explosive which enables security devises to detect the explosive. This particular provision fulfills our obligations under an international convention requiring such legislation.

The amendment under consideration, however, goes much further. In addition to providing a study of tracing taggants, it also gives regulatory authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to implement the results of the study without congressional review. The amendment thus presupposes that the study will conclude that the use of tracing taggants is feasible, and the amendment criminalizes the failure to include these agents in the manufacturer of explosives.

Thus, the Feinstein amendment would require the placement of so- called traceable taggants--that is, microscopic bits of plastic coded to link explosives to a particular manufacturer--in all explosives before the study of whether this is feasible or safe is concluded, or even conducted for that matter. This is hardly the type of impartiality and objectiveness the American people would want in a study of this sort.

Indeed, even if the study reasonably concluded that use of such agents was practical, cost effective, and would aid law enforcement, opponents of the inclusion of such agents would have the perfect argument that the results of the study were preordained and thus unreliable.

Even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency which would have regulatory authority, has conceded that more study is needed before implementing procedures and regulations. The BATF's division chief for arson and explosives recently stated:

It would be important for us to at least assess the state of the technology and the research and the development that has been done in the last 15 years. We need to get ourselves up to speed.

Moreover, this amendment would impose a requirement for regulation without regard to the need for unbiased study of this issue, or for the legitimate safety concerns raised by the use of these taggants.

A 1980 report by the Office of Technology Assessment found substantial evidence that placing these "tracing" taggants in explosives seriously affects the stability of the explosive materials. Thus, these taggants could increase the risk of injury or death. Tagging explosives may raise other very important issues, such as contamination of evidence, saturation of tagging agents in places where explosives are used for legitimate uses, and negative effects on small business.

Given these very important and wide-ranging concerns, it is imperative that the Congress, not the BATF, have the ability to make these important decisions regarding tracing taggants once a study is completed. Requiring the use of taggants before a thorough study of the effectiveness and safety implications of their use is conducted places the cart before the horse.

The bill now before the Senate provides for a comprehensive study of this issue. Congress should commission and review the study before enacting criminal penalties based on the assumed outcome.

I understand the distinguished Senator is very sincere in her amendment and is trying to do what is right here. But I hope the points I have raised will persuade colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we ought to approach this with a study first and then see where we go from there and have congressional action with regard to taggants after we have a thoroughgoing study because of the safety and other concerns involved in tagging various explosives.

It is not just safety; it is effectiveness of the explosives as well. But safety is something that is more important to me. I really believe we ought to do this the right way. Of course, hopefully, do it in a way that ultimately will be pleasing to our friend from California, who is very sincere about her amendment and has the highest of motivations in bringing it here. But I hope I have made the case we really should not accept this amendment at this time.

I am prepared to move to table the amendment with the understanding the vote will occur after 6 p.m. today.

Mrs. Feinstein: I wonder if the Senator would permit me to respond to his statement prior to tabling?

Mr. Hatch: Sure.

Mrs. Feinstein: I appreciate that very much.

Mr. President, if I might just very briefly respond? Taggants have been studied. I am holding up one of these studies entitled "Taggants In Explosives." The date is April 1980. The studying office is the Office of Technology Assessment. You can see the thickness of the study.

On the issue of safety, what the Office found:

In no case did the addition of encapsulated taggants significantly increase the sensitivity of the explosive materials to the test conditions. No evidence of any decreased stability or other significant changes was found in any of the tests with dynamite, gels, slurries or black powder.

That is essentially the world that would be affected by taggants. The taggants would affect, really, these areas. In my amendment we do provide for a study, but what we say is at some point you have to say enough of studying and make a decision and go ahead. Twelve more months of study and then it is implementation, where taggants can be used with safety, with no increase in the volatility of the explosive matter, and where they could lead to being able to trace suspects in bombings.

There have been two constituencies opposed to taggants. Let us be brutally frank. One of them is, once again, our friends in the National Rifle Association. And the second is the explosives industry. The explosives industry says taggants would add cost to us.

In fact, the cost of using taggants in dynamite, water gels, slurries, emulsions, and cast boosters, as quoted are, per pound, $1.42; $1.47; $1.45, and $7.41 respectively. That is a minimal cost to be able to trace back where an explosive might be used in a bomb that can blow up as many as 168 people at one time.

The National Rifle Association has once again opposed the use of taggants. I cannot figure out the reason for the life of me, but I suppose it is because we surround this area with a certain kind of anonymity. I think if ever we have seen the need to increase transparency in sales of explosives we saw it at the World Trade Center and we saw it once again in Oklahoma City.

My amendment would also permit the study, and a study only, of chemical fertilizers that are used, like ammonium nitrate, to see if these fertilizers can be made inert. There are countries, for example, that add lime to ammonium sulfate and prevent it from exploding. Should we do that? I think we ought to study it. The amendment in the bill, the original, includes no study in the area of chemical fertilizers and chemical components which are increasingly used as bomb materials in this country.

In response to my distinguished chairman, I would only say there is a time to study and there is a time to stop studying and take action. This issue has been studied in 1980. In my amendment it will be studied for another year. But then we will move ahead in the areas I have just mentioned: dynamite, water gels, slurries, emulsions, and black powder. All of these areas can be successfully tagged. The state of the art is there to do it. Switzerland has done it for a number of years. Other countries are doing it and there is no reason why we should not as well.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Utah.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, there are a couple of letters I have received, mailed to the Honorable Christopher J. Dodd and the Honorable Joe Lieberman. This is from Unimin Corp. in New Canaan, CT, a corporation or business right in the middle of their State. I will just read the letter to Senator Dodd. I ask unanimous consent both letters be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

That is just one illustration of perhaps many illustrations that indicates we are not as sure of what we are doing in this area as we should be.

I am concerned about the effectiveness of explosives. More importantly, I am concerned about the safety of explosives. But this raises another issue, and that is whether putting taggants into explosives that are utilized in some of our industries might destroy those industries in this country at a high cost to our society. And I would say the silica chip industry is a very important industry in this country.

Senator Feinstein's amendment requires the Secretary of Treasury to promulgate regulations requiring the placement of trace elements which "will not substantially impair the safety of the explosive."

I would like to ask my colleague one question. Where do we draw the line, and what is a substantial or unsubstantial impairment of safety?

Does not the Feinstein amendment require the placement of taggants where doing so may very well impair safety? At least, that is what I have been led to believe.

I would be happy to yield for a response.

Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, the amendment very specifically says so that safety would not be impaired; in other words, in the study that would be done in the ensuing 12 months that there not be an adverse environmental impact, not impair the stability of the explosive materials, and that safety not be impaired.

Those are the three criteria in the amendment.

Mr. Hatch: The study that the distinguished Senator from California has cited was conducted, I believe, back in 1980. I am a member of the Technology Assessment Board. That study itself found substantial evidence that placing taggants in explosives seriously affects the stability of the explosive material. I am reading what it says here on page 29, in their detailed findings.

The tests so far conducted are only a small fraction of the total number of tests that must be performed before it can conclusively be determined whether taggants are compatible with commercial explosives and gun powders. Even if the current question of the stability of smokeless powder in boosters is resolved, it is not possible to generalize from the results of the limited tests . . . so far completed.

And they conclude that the testing has not demonstrated that taggants can be safely added to explosives.

Thousands of people come into contact with explosives every day during the manufacture, storage, transportation, and use of explosives. Accidents involving explosives can have extremely severe consequences to these thousands of people. Therefore, safety must be demonstrated, and a carefully administered qualification program for analysis, safety, testing, and manufacturing procedures, control, and experience is necessary before a new explosive or an explosive with a significant exchange in composition can be considered safe.

In addition, each type of explosive product requires individual evaluation and testing, the type of qualification program considered necessary before safety can be demonstrated as shown in table 12 and discussed in detail in chapter 4. A particularly important aspect of that qualification testing is the effect of long-term storage.

It goes on. The point is that recently, the ATF itself asked for further studies recognizing that technologies had changed substantially since the original study was conducted. It is pretty apparent that I and those on my side of this issue do not oppose taggants per se. Rather, we oppose granting regulatory authority to an agency before an updated study can be done which may solve some of these very important issues.

Even though the distinguished Senator requires a study, as do we, she requires without further congressional approval that taggants be placed automatically at a certain time. It makes no sense to grant regulatory authority before an updated study is conducted. Indeed, I think that this legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein would seriously undermine our confidence in the studies that have occurred thus far and our confidence in explosives in general.

So there is a lot of use of explosives in our society--legitimate, honest, decent use. The Unimin letter is a perfect illustration of perhaps thousands of businesses or companies or people who might be affected by this. We should not compromise the integrity or the objectivity of the study conducted by OTA.

So I, therefore, oppose this amendment, and with the Senator's permission, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted upon until after 6 o'clock tonight.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein amendment No. 1202 be laid aside, and at 6 p.m., we have a vote on my motion to table.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I yield the floor.

---

Continue to DOC Id: cr05jn95-22 Part 2